Another expert climate professor *** becomes outspoken skeptic

Look, another climate expert the BBC won’t be interviewing

Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books. He is just retired, and finally able to speak his mind. [Updated] …though he’s been a climate professor and a skeptic for some years, somehow the media didn’t beat a path to his door. He commented below that rather than staying silent til his retirement he has been skeptical for many years and was free to say so at his university (such a rare thing, how many other profs can we say the same about?). His University of Wisconsin site is here, and his statement here.]

The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life.

Lives are not at risk, but careers sure seem to be. Not medieval times but perhaps modi-eval?

So how many of the 97% of climate science believers are actually skeptics? Even after they retire there are lots of reasons for them to stay quiet. [Obviously, not the case for Prof Tsonis].

He’s willing to debate

Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.

All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics.

The models were wrong. If they can’t explain the pause, they don’t understand the cause. (h/t HockeySchtick for that phrase.)

All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.

My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.

Good on him for speaking out. Shame he didn’t feel he could when he was employed.

For the record, I would like to state that the header “PROFESSOR RETIRES AND BECOMES A CLIMATE SCEPTIC” is wrong and misleading. I did not wait to retire in order to express my opinions. I am expressing my views for many years and while I was employed. In fact, my article in Washington Times is a summary of my “Statement” posted in my website years ago. My university never interfered with my research.

This is exactly what I meant in the article by “ignorant people abusing the internet”.

“But remember models are not evidence. Models can be useful tools if they accurately predict the empirical (actual) evidence and none of the 90 odd climate models developed by scientists to date, have predicted the 20 years hiatus in warming that we are now experiencing. The normal practice in science in such circumstances is to set the models aside.” Dr Doug Edmeades, MscHons, ONZM (Services to Agriculture), is an independent soil scientist based in Hamilton.

This appears to be a re-run of an earlier article from last year – Doug Edmeades: Why I’m a global warming sceptic.

Speed-reading just a few of the comments shows this country is still divided between the religious/cult/faithful believers and the more pragmatic evidence-based realists. Checked out The Remarkables Ski Area webcam (Queenstown) this arvo and whaddaya know – snowflakes wafting out of a storm leaden sky. Ah yes, summer!

As I no longer read Stuff due to its egregious untruths, I missed Doug Edmeades’ Opinion Piece, which is a courageous move on Doug’s part. One doesn’t need to know any science, or indeed to know anything at all about the climate to judge whether it is warming or not. One just needs to read the slimy, vicious and ignorant comments on his article to know who his correct.

I am familiar with Doug’s stance – he had a very good article in the penultimate NZFarmer edition of March 19 2018.

As for snow in Queenstown, I am familiar with the vagaries of summer weather there, having been born there. A “place” from the airport roundabout is named after my father. I remember snow on the ground on Boxing Day in the 50′s.

Cool – literally and figuratively. I, too, have a ‘Place’ on Q-town Hill and a ‘mountain’ out the back of The Remarks off Coal Pit Saddle with my father’s surname attached to it, however it was named after an early 1900s fire-and-brimstone preacher in town from a different clan. We also had a White Christmas in 2002 – not to town-level but the tops were all coated in fresh after a summer southerly snap.

And what do you know, it snowed on Mt Hutt today, 14 January 2019. The webcams were still frozen, covered in ice/sleet/snow last time I checked (6 pm NZ-time). Their still images update regularly, so there may be a frame of ™catastrophic carbon-weirding fallout powder™ coating the summit. As for Herald/Stuff/etc. I avoid like the plague as well, yet they’re a reference when they DO cover a voice from the wilderness or snow in summer, which, really, is no change at all.

For the record, I would like to state that the header “PROFESSOR RETIRES AND BECOMES A CLIMATE SCEPTIC” is wrong and misleading. I did not wait to retire in order to express my opinions. I am expressing my views for many years and while I was employed. In fact, my article in Washington Times is a summary of my “Statement” posted in my website years ago. My university never interfered with my research.

This is exactly what I meant in the article by “ignorant people abusing the internet”.

It has never been about the science, it has always been about the money. Pay a mediocre climatologist enough and he/she will produce research papers supporting what you want, even the older and wiser ones will eventually comply to enable them to keep the job they studied for

The UN has enough money to buy governments and scientists to spout their Agenda 21 and 30 world government aspirations and everyone else suffers.

It’s not about “the money,” it’s always been about world government and population reduction. When you put it in perspective, that is the only possible conclusion, especially in light of a cooling world as opposed to a warming world.

“Laszlo Varro, chief economist for the International Energy Agency (IEA), told a recent conference of greenhouse gas scientists in Melbourne that Asia was experiencing an energy transformation unlike anything in history.

“The overwhelming majority of electricity-demand growth comes 10 years after you provide electricity to the village,” Mr Varro said.

“You provide electricity to the village and then the kids go to school. Then they work in a factory and they buy a refrigerator and a television.”

“Agenda 21, is part of the design to transform land from public ownership to large tracts of no-go wilderness managed by technocrats, each eco-area protected by buffer zones and with designated corridors linking human habitation areas. In the United States, in 1993, the Clinton Administration adopted the Agenda 21 Wildlands Project Plan and here it is, easily available on the internet.”

A.k.a “Rewilding”. Some think hurricane Katrina and New Orleans was the first real rewilding “hit” on a western nation. New Orleans was left to fester, and I believe some of its been “rewilded” by lack of rebuilding. In Australia, we have mountain cattlemen kicked out of parks, chunks of coat turned into marine parks ( to encourage charks in close to scare punters out of the water ) etc. Its all about the New Age stupidity of favouring the animals over humans. Interstingly, from a Biblical perspective, huamns are *always* deemed higher than the animals, with the new eco religion, its the other way. Just another way the eco lunacy is the UN-driven planetary cancer that just keeps on growing….

” All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). ”

This is the truth, and WHY “climate models” do not work. In order to “model” something, be it in oils, acrylics, marble or computer code, first you have to have a very good understanding of the thing you are attempting to model. You cannot model something you have to make “guesstimates” at in order to make it function. What you have is a simulation, then, not a model, and it will reflect exactly what you expect it to, not necessarily what you are attempting to – that is, unless you are attempting to have it reflect a distortion and not reality in the first place. The difference can then be as drastic as comparing a da Vinci to a Picasso.

I first read that “a good scientist is always sceptical” (my quote may be inaccurate, but not the meaning) in a business magazine on a flight to the US in the 1970s. And sorry, which one escapes me.
No, I’m not a scientist, but appreciate its strengths, and have kept this principle up front in my thinking. It was reinforced some years later when I discovered Edward de Bono’s six thinking hats, of which the entire set is rarely used in public discussion.
Many thanks to Professor Tsonis for speaking out, and for his getting published in any media.
Cheers,
Dave B

Yes, you CAN model things you don’t completely understand – but you need to remember that doing so does not grant understanding, and that the model is not the thing modeled. It can be WRONG. In which case maybe you go back and adjust your guesstimates – and/or make structural changes in the model – until it handles what HAS happened and gives correct-so-far answers.

Then you wait a while and see if it KEEPS giving correct answers. Correct being defined as accurately predicting (in advance) what’s going to happen in the real world – not what the politicians and grant committees want to hear.

You don’t make predictions of what’s going to happen in the real world, based on the model, until it has a significant track record of being RIGHT without further adjustment.

That’s how scientists make and use models of things they don’t understand.

Someone who makes a model and then assumes it’s correct, without that validation, may be a Ph.D in climatology, may be a professor of the subject, may have a gazillion research papers published in reputable journals, but they are NOT a scientist.

According to warming proponents there is only CO2 initiated Global Warming.

Unfortunately this theory is a scientific Joke.

Human Origin CO2 doesn’t Heat the atmosphere in any discernible way.

Then we have the urban heat island effect: i.e. The energy we put in the atmosphere from direct combustion in cars, industry and electricity use. The residual “heat” created is so small that every day we must pray that the Sun rises.

Interesting model you’re proposing Keith. You seem to be saying that non human origin C02 does heat the atmosphere (here I’m assuming that you are referring to the greenhouse effect), but Human C02 does not. How does that work?

Sorry not quite true.
Measurements of carbon isotopes and falling oxygen in the atmosphere show that rising carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels and cannot be coming from the ocean. from New Scientist

From Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report.
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

Furthermore, if humans are 100% responsible, then thanks to China, India and many other countries building long -lived coal fired power stations (well over 1000 planned and being built, with a 40% or so increase in global emissions,) then human global CO2 emissions are guaranteed to continue to rise for at least the next 40-50 years.

But there is lots of scientific evidence that this is NOT & was NEVER so.

Here is one BLACK SWAN showing this is the recent study of Greenland.!

It is peer reviewed research of ice cores. And surprise surprise Greenland has been cooling for the last 7,000 years while CO2 levels have been increasing…

Look at the chart in the link. It matches temperatures for the last 9,000 years against CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And for the last 7000 years the temperature on the Greenland Ice cap has gradually been getting cooler.

Simultaneously the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as scientifically measured in ice cores have been rising

CONCLUSION : CO2 does not make the Earth “Warmer” …

Now isn’t that WONDERFUL NEWS ! We can all go back to living our normal lives without being worried about a global warming catastrophe.

It’s just normal changing weather folks.

We don’t have to feel guilty about & close down our reliable cheap coal fired electricity plants to save the planet !!

We don’t have to subsidise expensive unreliable wind turbines or solar panels either !

That Paper by Rud Istvan, too inconvenient re millimetre measurements on a bumpy sea. But not to worry, our susstainable guardians have got it down pat. They rely on an oft repeated massaging effect on their audience, product of a dumbed-down by design education system, and they rely on their gender campaign, sidelining the inconvenient criticism of obstreperous white male critics, often engineers, and quashing sceptics in general. Quash!

a temperature anomaly is not a temperature record -it is the variation from a baseline. If the paper had used a rolling baseline (of say around 30 years) instead of just one, pciked seemingly at random I might give the paper more thought. As it is this is just playing with numbers, there is no science in it.

1.Global warming mediated by CO2 was identified as a ‘problem’ by the UN politicians.

It is not a problem. As the planet comes out of the LIA it should warm up. Both defrosting land, and the oceans should release CO2 during this time. It appears to be quite normal and both the planet’s temperature and CO2 levels are well within historical norms.

The warming is not a problem and increased levels of CO2 are not a problem. The UN-IPCC and it’s adherents are a grave problem on the world as they actively seek to slow, or even destroy, Western democracy’s industrial base, and its expansion into less developed nations, by politics and misapplied and unfounded scientific suppositions.

There is no observed scientific evidence of CO2 being a problem gas in the atmosphere at current levels, or even at double the current level.
There does not have to be an alternative to CO2 global warming supposition as the basic tenet of the idea is wrong — planet-wide warming is NOT a problem! It is beneficial to life, as is the rising CO2 levels.

Wrong in at least two places, measurement shows that only half the emitted CO2 accumulated over a year, the rest is absorbed, This demonstrates CO2 has a half life of 1 year, after 5 years the biosphere has absorbed more than 95%.
It matters not whether the CO2 is human origin or not next accumulation is the only thing that counts.

If we were to hold human emissions constant the biosphere would expand (global greening) to absorb all of it in 5 years.

It’s just as well because all your scads of solar panels and windmills are making so much more of it than coal fired power.

BS! I am sure Peter knows where to find data on the nuclear test induced increase of C14 isotopes above the background level. If he did, he would see a nice little curve wrt time that shows how quickly these isotopes have been absorbed by the environment. No other proof is needed to show the “Half Life” of the CO2 cycle. The partial pressure of CO2 could well be the best proxy we have for the temperature or energy level of the world’s oceans. Henry’s law does rule.

The UN-IPCC version of the cAGW paradigm is unfalsifiable and so is not science. It is just a political movement using sciency language, poor climate models and lots of chutzpah to cow its opponents.
This pseudoscience is the UN’s tool to ensure their ‘third-way socialism’ of transforming the world with ‘sustainable development’ and 2030 Agenda is foisted on all.

As Andy has pointed out this poster appears to be intent on being a Serial Verbal Ejaculator of Pseudo Climate Science.

A long time ago there was the big T who spent a lot of time here in preparation, so that was a vote of confidence in the effectiveness of Jo’s blog.
Similarly, the fact that this poster, PF, sees the blog as a serious threat to the scam is renewed confirmation of its effectiveness.
We can learn a lot from visitors, the only thing is that we post here because we believe in a better world and the interferons are getting paid $50 an hour.

I’ve been following this blog for years, from around the time of the BEST Temperature analysis.

In that time I’ve noticed that common tropes like C02 does not cause warming are presented as fact, but are never backed up with anything plausible.

Also in that time, I’ve noticed that rather than defend your positions with facts, you quickly move to name calling, ascribing motives, and insulting my intelligence. If that is what passes for debate in your fantasy world fine, but don’t shoot the messenger.

1. UV from the Sun hits ground/water and is immediately degraded.
2. Some of this degraded energy is removed to space by conduction and convection of the atmosphere.
3. The low grade energy remaining can be drawn from the ground as IR which can be absorbed by water and CO2. This energy cannot be “trapped” by water or CO2 because the now, over energized molecules, are surrounded by other atmospheric gases and the system must Immediately Equilibrate. This is a not negotiable point of physics and gas laws.

In both cases, Conduction and IR absorption, the hotter expanded, less dense parcel of gas Must rise and take the energy closer to its final destination:
that great heat sink in the sky.

The action of water and CO2 as greenhouse absorbers has no discernible effect on the daily return of solar energy to space.

If that process wasn’t there, it’s job is done just as well by conduction, convection and direct movement of IR upwards to space.

As a scientist, and long time reader, I’ve found people like you follow the scam like a religion. You no longer even pretend to follow the scientific method. You blatantly try to prove your hypothesis instead of disproving it. If you did, you would find what we find.

If my client CO2 is to be acquitted, then we’ll need to find the real culprit.

‘Solar activity very clearly predicts that there won’t be any global warming until at least 2035. That will make for a 30-year long Pause that is incompatible with humans being responsible for most of the warming since 1950. If low solar activity can stop warming on its tracks, it is obvious that it also contributed to the warming when it was high.’

I have looked at the IPCC reports – the scientific part, not the Summary for Policymakers – and they aren’t very convincing with all sorts of “might” “could” “projected etc.

Perhaps we could change the target slightly to known cases.
During the last interglacial (Eemian) about 125,000 years ago the world was much warmer than at present. Sea levels were at least 6 metres above current levels (indicating many melted glaciers), and there were lions, elephants, giraffes and hippos in the Thames Valley (from fossils) and rhinoceros (plain not hairy) in Yorkshire. Yet the CO2 level from the ice core measurements was 280ppm.

The old capital of Norway (in medieval times) was Trondheim. The Cathedral was something in 1977 even before restoration. Its location and building surely indicates a reasonably sized population with enough spare time i.e. not subsistence farmers struggling to stay alive. Archeological evidence indicates that wheat was grown there (near Trondheim) and with much extra land as the tree line was 300 metres above the 1970 level.
Yet the CO2 level (from ice cores) was no higher than 285ppm.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidaros_Cathedral#History

Perhaps you would explain what caused that warming because it wasn’t CO2.

PF at last I thought a LINK, but then I went there and its just propaganda, no science, not even a theory just someone spouting off in support of the IPCC line.
I had felt a little sympathy for you, but no longer.
You are an IPCC stooge!

The proof you have Fitz is that something has to be causing warming so it has to be Co2 , or so your masters say and that’s the science you refer to and your happy with that .
So Co2 goes to court charged with grievous planet assault with intent and the only witness says he never saw Co2 do it but it must have been him because we think it should , could , maybe have been him .
The judge is not going to like that very much .

No matter how beautiful a model. if it doesn’t match observations it’s wro-ong.

A little history of science change. Richard Lindzen, in his paper, ‘Climate Science: is it currently designed to answer questions?’ (2008) looks at reasons, why climate science won’t, and does not, seek to describe Nature faithfully…namely, as a consequence of 20th century politicization of science generally, and of climate science modelling specifically. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

It must be nice for people like you to believe that their CO2 supposition and all it’s political ramifications are so true, especially as there has been so little observed atmospheric warming, or any of the the much professed impending doom they screeched about. After 40 years you would think there would be something of worth to what they predicted. But no there’s not.
There’s no skepticism in you, or many other cAGW, Climate Change™ ‘dangerous CO2 warming’ advocates, for like you, they truly believe they and their CO2 suppositions are correct All this despite history and the reality of observations.
Even after 40 years of no dire climate calamity, there’s just evidence of the usual variable weather.
All the political maneuvering of the UN-IPCC is just wrong, and it’s as highly variable as their conjecture about the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 levels, built as it is from a failed supposition that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are somehow ‘dangerous’ to the planet.

However as the solar minimum progresses it is quite likely all this UN inspired expensive, flaky, and unsustainable boondoggles will be seen as nought but expensive political mischief. Though these schemes (wind and solar power, etc) are futile, they have been (for some) highly profitable. But then again the UN has always found deluded ways of profiting when tilting at windmills.

And i should care about what an easily triggered, obviously obsessive person probably sitting around in their smelly underpants in a dim room somewhere allegedly thinks??

Angry mate…..relax, chill and try to get over yourself a little.

Or….. if you actually want to make a real difference rather than just having your normal frothing whinge on the intertubes, why dont you volunteer to me a staffer for Malcolm Roberts and donate the extensive benefits of your intellect to getting him back in the Senate this year? Would at least get you out of that basement and into the sunlight??

In a way none of this is surprising. Just consider the many other social issues that we’re experiencing today and you’l notice that we are living in a renewed Puritanical world, where anything that goes against the established thought is not just frowned upon, but often comes with severe repercussions.

You can’t argue with the religion of climate, you can’t argue with the religion of gender, you can’t argue with the religion of open borders etc. And the reason is that all of this is intertwined as part of the grand plan for a one world government. And where does all of this originate? The UN.

Mocking them is a very effective tool….if they have a crack at you for mocking them, it looks mean on their behalf, and uses their own victim mentality against them.

Occasionally they become incandescent, but that’s part of the deal. Never back down from bullies. I’ve had a couple of toe-to-toe with leftist weenies, if you back off , it only emboldens them. Stand your ground, and call them out.

China toughens up on clueless solar , wind and EVs. So why do we here in OZ follow this lunacy like lemmings leaping off a cliff? This idiocy is costing us endless billions $ for a guaranteed zero return and yet we seem to have a majority of our donkeys who are happy to vote Labor or Greens ASAP.
Like Turkeys who can’t wait for Christmas.

Neville:
See also the moves by Poland. No more subsidies for renewables and all existing wind farms to be removed by 2035. If you want to build one it has to be 20 times the height from any habitation, but without a subsidy how many will want to build one.

The real problem with ALP/Greens supporters is that when take on a cause like AGW they are unable to accept any argument against it or imagine any of the repercussions that will result from such a policy. Leftism truely is a mental disorder that makes rational thought impossible, and stirs up dictatorial tendencies just to shut the opposition up.

Some examples:

Plastic bag ban. They have been replaced with a much more environmentally product.
Qid drinks container. Poorly thought out, no implementation plan.

“I could never have known so well how paltry men are, and how little they care for really high aims, if I had not tested them by my scientific researches. Thus I saw that most men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence”

— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

All sounds so easy to take the high moral ground and stand on principle when its not your mortgage, kids schooling, career, retirement at stake.

As someone who toed the corporate line when I knew for a fact it would always end up in a train wreck , I can understand the problem, particularly in a field where there are no real short term negative consequences for following the alarmist pack. Everyone else is doing it right?

Only once did I up and leave but had youth and a booming economy on my side at the time, and they had transgressed from the stupid to the shonky.

How to hype up a hot headline courtesy of BOM: December was the warmest on record for Australia, with prolonged periods of extreme heat.
“It was the warmest December on record for Australia in terms of mean, maximum, and minimum temperatures. The national mean temperature was 2.13 °C above average. Maximum temperatures were 2.41 °C above average and minimum temperatures were 1.85 °C above average.”
Note the amazing precision, 2.13 °C above average mean, and 2.41 °C above average maximum.
How terrible, but nowhere on the page do they tell you what those actual temperatures were. Anomalies are the departure from the long-term (1961–1990) average.
Further down the page there is a table showing the context. Are you ready for the shocking news?
The previous highest was +2.30 °C in 1972. So this highest for December was 0.11 °C above a December 46 years ago. We are doomed!

That means “We were doomed in 1972 as well..But we just didn’t know it”…Sort of ?

The BOM now wants a higher profile to get more filthy lucre.. So alarmism just the way the game is played.

by the way, I actually remember 1972…It was an OK year weather wise in East Gippsland where I was then..just dry because of a drought..So of course mean maximum temps were high…But there were ots of frosts that Winter as well..

I just saw, in passing, another TV presentation (I assume by a BOM representative) going on about a ‘summer heatwave’. Increasingly the BOM and the MSM carry on as if Australia has never before been hot in summer. Clearly this is the motive behind all this hyping of ‘heatwaves’, to bolster the climate change narrative, unfortunately too many poor sods seems to believe it.

Just imagine if the cooling does start to hit with a vengeance in the next five years or so and summertime temperatures start to hover around the mid-20s or lower, with only the occasional one close to the 30s. I wonder how the BOM and MSM will be able to spin that one into the hottest EVAH?

At least 21 weather-related deaths have been reported in Europe in the last 10 days
Military helicopters and tanks are being used to help people who are trapped
Many public areas remain closed due to the danger of trees cracking under the weight of snow

That year (2013), shortly after the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report was released, he also criticized the reliability of climate models, saying that they “don’t agree with each other – and they don’t agree with reality.

10 Jan: WaPo: How the fossil fuel industry got the media to think climate change was debatable
By Amy Westervelt
(Amy Westervelt is an audio and print reporter who covers climate and gender, and sometimes the intersection of the two etc)

Documents uncovered by journalists and activists over the past decade lay out a clear strategy: First, target media outlets to get them to report more on the “uncertainties” in climate science, and position industry-backed contrarian scientists as expert sources for media. Second, target conservatives with the message that climate change is a liberal hoax, and paint anyone who takes the issue seriously as “out of touch with reality.” In the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists. The Heartland Institute, which hosts an annual International Conference on Climate Change known as the leading climate skeptics conference, for example, routinely calls out media outlets (including The Washington Post) for showing “bias” in covering climate change when they either decline to quote a skeptic or question a skeptic’s credibility.

Data on how effective this strategy has been is hard to come by, but anecdotal evidence of its success abounds. In the early 1990s, polls showed that about 80 percent of Americans were aware of climate change and accepted that something must be done about it, an opinion that crossed party lines. By 2008, Gallup found a marked partisan divide on climate change. By 2010, the American public’s belief in climate change hit an all-time low of 48 percent, despite the fact that those 20 years saw increased research, improved climate models and several climate change predictions coming true…

By about 2008, most mainstream print outlets had moved past the notion that “balance” means including climate contrarians in coverage of climate science. These outlets do still trip up occasionally, though. In 2017, ProPublica published a remarkably uncritical Q&A with Happer, for example, describing him as “brilliant and controversial,” and characterizing his view that global warming is good for the planet as merely “unusual.” That same year, the New York Times was roundly criticized for hiring climate contrarian Bret Stephens as a regular editorial columnist (and his first column didn’t help).

While print outlets aren’t perfect, TV news has lagged further behind on climate, often presenting climate contrarians as an equal and opposite balance to climate scientists…

Though some outlets have moved to extricate deniers from the conversation, too many television news programs continue to bring on “contrarian” experts, giving a platform to tired lies. I say “lies” because fossil fuel industry scientists debunked these theories themselves decades ago, so they are knowingly perpetuating falsehoods…

12 Jan: UK Evening Standard: Europe snow: 20 dead as heavy snow continues to fall across continent
by Megan White
Snowstorm in Europe: January 2019
42 PICS
Bad weather has closed down schools, left some remote villages cut off and disrupted traffic and power supplies in the Balkans…
In Germany, the driver of a snow plow died after his vehicle toppled into an icy river…

Austrian military helicopters had to rescue 66 German teenagers from a mountain guest house on Friday where they had been stuck for several days…
In Salzburg, all parks, public gardens, play areas and cemeteries were closed Friday because of the danger of trees falling under the weight of snow…

10 PICS: 12 Jan: Bloomberg: The Beast From the East Buries Europe in Snow
By Jonathan Tirone
The once-in-a-century snowfall that’s buried Alpine villages in Austria and Germany this week is just a taste of more severe weather on the way as Europe braces for new storms and a Siberian cold blast that meteorologists call “the beast from the east.”
Avalanches that were triggered by as much as 5 meters (16 feet) of snow have led to mounting casualties, evacuations, stranded trains and snarled traffic…
Austria has had to call on the military to help control the chaos…

Cleaning up the mess may not get any easier with a deep cold spell forecast to descend on the region. Average temperatures in Germany will be some 4 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than average for the rest of the month…

Occupied Palestine’s “Mt. Hermon ski site said it has been years since they recorded uninterrupted snowfall that continued for three days straight, with some 90cm hitting the mountain’s lower parts so far.” The River Jordan’s in flood, the hills are buried under ‘record snowfall’ and it’s mighty cold in the Levant as frigid Arctic northerlies reach as far south as north Africa and the eastern Mediterranean. Let me guess, warming caused this freezing, right?

The northern hemisphere jet stream has always intrigued me: it roars in one, mighty, unstoppable river from north Africa eastwards over the Himalaya, China, Japan, the north Pacific, then when it gets to the American-Atlantic-Anglo-sphere it falls apart, breaks up, goes loopy: more knowledgeable minds than mine may know the reason for this, any suggestions?

Anyways, I enjoyed today’s cloudless, windless, 27˚C blissful sunshine, which was marred only by recent immigrant drivers who a) can’t drive and b) don’t know the road rules. But hey, I live another day! Just…

from El Gordo’s link
The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

Peter, you constantly fail to learn, if you really do have an education you aught to be able to do two checks.

The IPCC says that a doubling of CO2 (causing 3.7 watts per square metre of forcing) will bring about Ca 3.3Deg C of warming. The earth’s average temp is currently 287.7 K at the surface, using the SB equation calculate the emission per square metre. Now assume the IPCC is right and the 3.7 WATTS per square meter raises the temp to 291 K and calculate the surface emission subtract 1 From. 2 to get the change in surface emission. You will find that the difference is about 16 Watts per square meter.

IE IPCC projections require that 3.7watts per square metre of forcing causes 16 watts per square meter of extra emission. This is impossible.

Here is a simpler sum

The climate Co2 equation can be described as deltaT= C ln(C/Co)

Calculate the value for C using the following facts. 1850 CO2 270Ppm, 2018 CO2 412ppm, delta T (1850-2018) is about 0.9C and assume ALL warming over the period was caused by the CO2 change. Calculate delta T for a doubling using your value for C ( C ln(2) ).

Now take into account that less than 50% of the warming 1850-2018 is CO2 related (that is delta T for that period due to CO2 is less than 0.45 Deg) repeat the calculation to determine the appropriate temperature rise for a doubling based on historical warming.

Come back with the answers and we can discuss them.

These are very simple mathematical tests that anyone can do to demonstrate that the IPCC narrative is implausible.

It’s just like the false idea that wind, solar and EVs save CO2… That’s only true if you fail to take into account CO2 produced in manufacture, the loss of sinks, and the use of energy by the relevant industries.

Actual renewable generation barely exceeds the energy consumption of all the workers and infrastructure devoted to climate. There is barely any net energy and deficit emission, yet you continue to lobby for a solution that continues to fail to produce the goods and actually hurts people in the process. There is a certain lack of morality in that.

Only the volcanically active West Antarctic Peninsular has lost much sea ice. East Antarctic is gaining. Greenland has gain the last 2-3 years.
Arctic sea ice has been steady for the last 109 years at least.. NO CO2 effect\

4. Glacier retreat.

Started at the end of the LIA, many of those glaciers did not exist before then, as shown by tree stumps found under retreating glaciers, a sign of MUCH warmer temperatures before the LIA.

5. Decreased snow cover
Both Autumn and Winter snow cover have been increasing. Go to Rutgers and see for yourself.

6 Sea level rise

Has been steady at tide gauges for over 100 years with no acceleration. Only by committing the scientific malfeasance of “adjusting” tides using “adjusted” satellite data is there any change.

7. Extreme events

Not happening

Total hurricane energy data is down, ZERO major tornados this year in the USA. !!

8. Ocean Acidification

No way they could measure the whole of ocean pH to 1dp pre-industrial. they can’t do it now.

and the 30% meme again roflmao.. and a further 1800% to become even neutral

1 – you are posting the anomaly it is not as you insist temperature
2 is the same, and you are ignoring heat transfer
3 total bulldust http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
4 Worldwide glaciers are retreating at faster rate (but this is in line with warming)
5 Where? in america you have this:
Between 1972 and 2015, the average extent of North American snow cover decreased at a rate of about 3,300 square miles per year. The average area covered by snow during the most recent decade (2006–2015) was 3.21 million square miles, which is about 4 percent smaller than the average extent during the first 10 years of measurement (1972–1981)—a difference of 122,000 square miles, or approximately an area the size of New Mexico (see Figure 1).
6 Disagree, those adjustments make sense to me
7 the fire in California? the flooding all around the world? That freak storm in NQ -as to tornados – we have 12 days in the year so far, and tornado season is in the northern summer/autumn
8 https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification – see the graph

Why are you SO DUMB that you fall for even the most basic of PROPAGANDA LIES

Peter, I must agree with Andy on his point 6. A study of two of Australia’s long-term tidal gauges, at Fremantle and Sydney, will show you two things:
1. The SLR rate is around 1.3 mm/year for Fremantle, and that doesn’t take into account the possible impact of land sinkage.
2. Perhaps more importantly, the SLOPE of SLR has NOT changed. This to me is quite vital.
Then we have the old tidal mark at Point Puer in Tasmania to consider, which is still visible today. This mark would have been well and truly submerged had SLR been substantial.

Very good points Graeme, I would like to see the sea temps superimposed with the expansion due to heat for these sites. After all the statement is about hotter water expanding, so if the temps are higher, and there is no measurable difference, then boho to that hypothesis

Have just realised, because I’ve been so focused in pointing out to folks that SLR is not increasing its rate, I haven’t given much thought to exactly what is causing the SLR in the first place. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.

Again, Andy’s is correct on point 7. The USA maintains very good records of tornadoes, hurricanes and storms over the years, and all these records show these events are decreasing rather than increasing. NOAA NCEI , AOML and NWS for example has good graphs on this. Also see their National Hurricane Center climatology page. Also floods in USA have decreased – USGS has good data on this. Please note that I’m quoting government organisation data here, not somebody’s cherry-picked version.

Point 7 shows how you base your beliefs on ideology not science .
The fire in California wasn’t caused by climate change and if you can point to one fire anywhere caused by climate change and not humans or lightning I for one will be in awe of your brilliance.

“Floods all over the world “?, how many hundreds of billions of trillions of times have I told you not to exaggerate ?

Face it Fitz your not here for science your here because someone is paying you to be a troll .

Only the volcanically active West Antarctic Peninsular has lost much sea ice. East Antarctic is gaining. Greenland has gain the last 2-3 years.
Arctic sea ice has been steady for the last 109 years at least.. NO CO2 effect
“

I did the math on one of these papers which showed that the melting required a forcing of 30watts per square metre to achieve. Given AGW generates just 0.6Watts per square meter this warming is Clearly NOT CO2 related.

Sent the math to the author who did not refute it (since they never bothered to do an energy balance before attributing it to the weak CO2 effect)

‘The history of deglaciation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) gives clues about its future. Southward grounding-line migration was dated past three locations in the Ross Sea Embayment.

‘Results indicate that most recession occurred during the middle to late Holocene in the absence of substantial sea level or climate forcing. Current grounding-line retreat may reflect ongoing ice recession that has been under way since the early Holocene. If so, the WAIS could continue to retreat even in the absence of further external forcing.’

Peter, WRT Andy’s point 3, Andy is 100% correct. The bulk of Antarctica is called “East Antarctica “, and the small appendage that extends up towards South America is the western part, which is quite different temperature-wise. Unfortunately, the alarmists always focus on the West and ignore the majority that is the East. A number of studies have indeed pointed out that while the East gains ice, the West loses it. So the entire continent, as a whole, is gaining rather than losing ice.

PF you are a fool. The very first graph, in your link, of CO2 levels going back 400k years has been proven to lag temperature by hundreds of years so cannot be used a proof that CO2 caused temperature rises!

Peter Fitzroy:
“Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths”. Uni-directional measurement.

Since CO2 does absorb IR radiation (and rapidly emits it in all directions) all that proves is that the concentration of CO2 is rising.

Your problem is assuming that heat isn’t escaping to space by other wavelengths, or other methods. I wonder what the scientists on a planet 50-100 light years away from Earth are making of the abrupt increase in radio frequencies? Would any of them come up with an “I Love Lucy” explanation?

James Cook University has finalised an external panel to investigate the research of a former star PhD student found guilty of misconduct and fabricating results after leaving the institution.

The panel formed to investigate the work of Oona Lonnstedt has been under review for almost a year after an investigation at Uppsala University in Sweden found the authors of a retracted science paper guilty of misconduct.

The JCU investigation has received fresh impetus with ongoing concerns about another paper by Dr Lonnstedt into the hunting habits of lionfish.

READ NEXT

Seeing red over #MeToo
THE ECONOMIST
A prestigious journal, Biology Letters, published an expression of concern about the paper amid claims Dr Lonnstedt had probably not collected the number of lionfish to study as had been claimed.

A follow-up correction by Dr Lonnstedt’s co-authors caused further controversy over whether a collage of 50 lionfish submitted to the journal by Dr Lonnstedt was meant to represent actual fish used in the experiments.

A digital analysis of the collage has revealed many of the images appear to be the same fish, which had been reversed, rotated or otherwise manipulated.

They said the poster was not supposed to suggest these were the individual fish, despite a correction in Biology Letters saying it was a “collage of 50 lionfish photographs providing evidence of the number of lionfish caught during the study”.

The co-authors said the wording of the correction had been an error.

They said Dr Lonnstedt no longer was involved in science and did not want to answer further questions about the lionfish paper.

Queensland marine scientist Walter Starck said he had doubts about the quality of the research and the poster.

“Saying the poster was to show they had lionfish in the lab is nonsense,” Dr Starck said.

“Obviously the intent was to imply those fish were the ones they used.

“Those species of lionfish are not very common and it is unlikely that a group of non-professional collectors could go out and get 50 of them around the island.

“If you look at the photos not only are they all pretty obviously the same fish but they are the same size,” he said. “Size is a very important aspect of predator-prey relationship.”

JCU said the university was committed to the highest standards of ethical research.

A JCU spokesman said an external panel had been finalised to investigate research conducted by Dr Lonnstedt to determine whether there had been any research misconduct.

“Panel members have accepted the role, but have not yet been formally appointed,” he said.

In a short time at JCU, Dr Lonnstedt published many high-profile papers on fish behaviour. One claimed that when damselfish live in degraded corals, that may be caused by climate change, they lose some of their sense of smell and become “fearless” and more subject to being eaten by predators.

In another paper she looked at the effect of high concentrations of carbon dioxide on damselfish’s ability to respond to predators. She found they were more likely to be eaten by predators.

According to Dr Lonnstedt’s work, reef degradation from climate change, changes in ocean pH from carbon dioxide and the impact of microplastics all caused little fish to be eaten by predators.

Uppsala University found the microplastics experiments had not been not conducted during the period and to the extent stated in the research article.

“This means that Lonnstedt has fabricated the results,” it said.

GRAHAM LLOYDENVIRONMENT EDITOR
Graham Lloyd is a fearless reporter of all sides of the environment debate. A former night editor, chief editorial writer and deputy business editor with The Australian, Graham has held senior positions nationa… Read more

This morning the link I posted earlier today (to the research from Greenland’s ice sheets showing cooling for the past 7000 years while CO2 has been rising ) ….Well it stopped working..Now a forbidden acess note pops up.

I replied before, the paper uses a baseline based and measures the variance against that. That is not temperature. Do you see the difference? If you take a different baseline you will have a different result. it is not science

11 Jan: MountainWatch: World Snow Wrap – Jan 11 2018
It has been snowing British Columbia, the western states of the US, Japan and Austria. More to come and much-needed snowfalls on the way for France.
by Reggae Elliss
USA
Last weekend saw some big snowfalls in the Californian Sierras with the Tahoe resorts and Mammoth receiving huge totals, Squaw Valley receiving a massive 122cms on the upper mountain in two days last Saturday and Sunday…
Mammoth also got the goods with a solid 167cms at the Summit in a week, taking the Summits season total to 4.8 metres…

JAPAN
Well, Japan has been a great place to be for the past two weeks with all resorts receiving ridiculously good snowfalls…
While everyone loves fresh powder a lot of people were happy to see the sun yesterday, particularly in Niseko where it hadn’t been spotted for three weeks…

CANADA
It has been a good month in Whistler and it is still happening with another 125cms in the past week, taking the season total to 681cms and the average base sits at 280cms…

EUROPE
As we reported in our Austrian snow story on Wed, the snow has been pretty relentless in Austria over the past three weeks, particularly in the north where the snowfalls have been huge with extreme winter conditions at times…

GREAT PIC: Zell am See Kaprum in the Salzburg region of Austria where the avalanche danger is now at extreme. Photo: Max Brundl

I suspect that by the time Europeans & Brits have escaped from the deep freeze afflicting them this January, the global warming myth will be just a fairy tale to tell the kids about…Ho, Ho, Ho !!!

And here in SA we keep getting warned about the Global Warming generated heat waves that are about to afflict us.. But the promised heat waves keep slip sliding away after a day…To be replaced by warmish weather with Southerly cool breezes….

Peter Fitzroy, are you being obtuse or simply wanting to confuse us ? You state in reply to my earlier comment : ” a temperature anomaly is not a temperature record -it is the variation from a baseline. If the paper had used a rolling baseline (of say around 30 years) instead of just one, pciked seemingly at random I might give the paper more thought.

Two questions for you :
1 Why not use as a ‘baseline’ the data from the year when this data set started 11,700 years ago ? What’s wrong with that ?

It does show up starkly change over time after all..

2: Why do you demand that such research a baseline which is a “rolling baseline” ? In other words a baseline which is not based on the temperature at the start -11700 years ago…

Hypothetically we could go back & use. a baseline from 50,000 years or 50,000,000 years… If someone wished to fund that research maybe…But so far no one has.

And so my third question :
3: How do you explain lower temperatures in Greenland’s Ice cap while CO has been rising for 7000 years ?

Ummmmmm ? Fitz you are not understanding the process of taking these ice cores.
1: Snow falls out of the sky onto the Greenland icecap.
2 Over time that snow is covered by more snow and gradually it packs down and becomes ice
3 The ice layers build up over time…Thousands of years of ice layers
4:The ice layers carry in them the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere when it fell from the sky. So an analysis of the ice via taking an ice core can tell us how much CO2 was present in the atmosphere over those thousands of years.
5 : The oxygen in the ice water molecules in the layers of the core samples also allows scientists are able to use the oxygen atoms in the glacial ice as a proxy for air temperature above the glacier.

Interesting science Fitz !

And not controversial – standard practice sort of.

So which bit of this logic don’t you follow ? I ask because I can follow all of it.

And that means that this research showing that Greenland has cooled over the past 7000 years, while CO 2 levels have increased, means CO2 levels are not very relevant to the way the Climate Changes.

12 Jan: Daily Mail: Europe’s whiteout death toll reaches at least TWENTY ONE as snow plow driver dies after his vehicle topples into an icy river and Austrian military helicopters are sent in to fly 66 German teenagers out of a mountain guest house
•Avalanche crashed through restaurant of the Hotel Säntis in Switzerland while guests were eating inside
•A 1,000ft wall of snow reportedly hit the hotel, in Schwägalp, in the canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden
•Three were injured and rescue teams are evacuating skiers and searching for anyone who might be missing
By Chris Pleasance And Julian Robinson
Meanwhile a power company employee suffered a heart attack while repairing supply lines damaged by the snow in Albania on Friday…
A state of emergency has been declared across much of southern Germany with troops brought in to help people who have become trapped, while the army has also been deployed in Albania, Montenegro and Serbia.

11 Jan: UK Express: Europe snow CHAOS: Shock pictures from across Europe as temperatures plummet to -23C
A DEADLY cold snap – which has seen temperatures in some parts of Europe plummet to -23C…
Germany has deployed soldiers to help rescue people who have been snowed in, while and hundreds of flights have also been cancelled. The extreme weather – which generally hits Europe every 30-100 years – is likely to continue until the middle of next week at the earliest. In Switzerland, a restaurant was rocked by a massive avalanche which buried 25 cars and left three guests eating inside injured…

***Almost 1,000 feet of snow has fallen in Switzerland in just 72 hours, causing enormous disruption…

(TIME WILL TELL – pat)
UK weather service the Met Office has already warned of possible snow in the north, and advised about the possibility of a “transition to colder weather” this month, although weekend temperatures will actually be above average.
However, spokesman Graham Madge yesterday downplayed suggestions of a repeat of last year’s Beast from the East, which caused havoc last February.
He said: “There is nothing in the next week or so that could indicate any change like the Beast from the East.”https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1070839/europe-snow-chaos-pictures-europe-weather-germany-switzerland-avalanche

11 Jan: UK Express: UK weather forecast: Britain set for 6-week DEEP FREEZE as widespread HEAVY SNOW IMMINENT
BRITAIN is just days away from the start of what could turn into a six-week Arctic freeze as warnings are issued to brace for imminent ‘widespread snow’.
By Nathan Rao
Winter is about to bite ‘with a vengeance’ with parts of the country facing the heaviest snowfall for years, forecasters say. A barrage of Atlantic storms will smash into sub-zero Arctic air about to sink over the UK unleashing torrents of snow across the country over the coming weeks. Polar conditions threaten to grip the nation through February with some experts predicting extreme cold to last into spring…
Weather charts show almost the entire country engulfed by snow by late January driven by a Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) of the North Pole…

Exacta Weather forecaster James Madden warned a long and harsh spell of severe cold weather is about to hit Britain.
He said: “From the middle part of next week and through to month end will bring a significant change to much more wintry conditions across the country.
“This will be accompanied by a noticeable and prolonged dip in temperatures for several weeks and repeated snow events which are likely to have a widespread impact.
“Current indications show even southern Britain in the firing line and this part of the country could see the heaviest snowfall for years with lasting accumulations.
“Winter is about to strike with a vengeance, and despite being somewhat later than expected, people should not be lulled into a false sense of security, we are facing a notable and prolonged spell of cold and snowy conditions.
“Generally cold weather could largely hold out through February and even into the start of the meteorological spring.”…

Britain will also fall to the mercy of a ‘negative Arctic Oscillation (AO)’ triggered by the Polar warming effect.
A negative AO, sparked by pressure changes between the North Pole and regions to the south, weaken prevailing westerly winds allowing Arctic air to push southwards over the US and Europe.
Forecasts issued by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warn the Arctic Oscillation will swing into a negative phase towards the end of next week.
Judah Cohen, a climatologist for the US Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER) wrote on Twitter: “GFS [weather models] predicting #colder temperatures and an increase in #snowfall potential across Western #Europe after January 20th as the Arctic Oscillation turns decidedly negative.”…

(Met Office) Deputy chief meteorologist, Martin Young said: “The latest forecast suggests the highest risk of any severe wintry weather is from late January and into February.
“Whether cold spells will be brought about by Arctic air arriving from the north or easterly flows arriving from the continent remains uncertain.
“However, before this happens we expect a rather changeable and relatively mild spell over the weekend and early next week, with some rain for most of us.
“From the middle of next week, and especially during the last week of January and into early February, there is an increased likelihood of cold weather becoming established across all of the UK.
“This would bring an enhanced risk of snow and widespread frost almost anywhere across the UK, but particularly across northern parts.”…
Weather charts show the mercury plunging below freezing across the country durning the second half of January.https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1070811/UK-weather-forecast-snow-January-2019-Met-Office-latest

11 Jan: UK Express: Europe weather: Snow BURIES Europe as death toll rises but is BIG FREEZE heading to UK?
EUROPE has been buried by heavy snowfall as severe weather continues to hit Austria, Germany and Sweden, but could the brutal winter weather be heading to the UK?
By Amani Hughes
The Met Office forecasts snow for the east in the next couple of weeks and frost which could become “widespread and severe.”
The agency added: “During the last week of January and into early February, there is an increased likelihood of cold weather being established across all of the UK…

“All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming”

Yes, that’s obvious. Consider the reverse, that the rapid ‘warming’ in the 1980s was not predicted. Wouldn’t it be appalling if the sudden warming was caused by the technological shift to a more accurate digital system?

What is suspicious is the size of the warming, 0.5C. Isn’t that very close to the reading accuracy of most of the world’s liquid thermometers? He admits the warming has stopped, but what if it never happened? What if instrumental change was the entire cause. It sure isn’t CO2 and the CO2 increase is demonstrably not man made.

A true sceptic would question the warming itself when it coincides with significant world wide instrumentation change over exactly the same period and it doesn’t continue.

After all, who would bother adjusting all the old temperatures by 0.5C? Surely no one would think a single change of +0.5C would mean the end of the world? No human being could even notice the change let alone prophesy doom for the planet?

Then there’s Al Gore and his friend James Hansen who on June 23rd 1988, the summer solstice opened the high windows of Congress to defeat the airconditioners during James’ testimony.

“Theon wrote. “Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon added. “I probably would have been removed if I had tried to cut off Jim Hansen’s funding, after all, he had Al Gore…on his team.”

The you get the BOM/NASA/IPCC fall back position. Sure, it is not hotter than 20 years ago, but some of the hottest years have been since the thermometers were changed. It’s a little embarrassing to say that the rapid armageddon tipping point runaway ‘warming’ had stopped completely.

the sudden warming was caused by the technological shift to a more accurate digital system?

That is a very good point.

Then there is this weather forecast made towards the end of the 1960′s by Dr Willie Dansgaard after his 1960s analysis of the Camp Century ice core.

Not content with confirming the past changes of climate, Dansgaard offers a forecast for the future. He bases it on repeating cycles of change that he thinks fit closely with the ice-records of the past—in fact the combined effects of two dominant cycles, one giving peaks of warmth every 80 years (Gleissberg Cycle) and the other peaks every 180 years (de Vries Cycle). Each of these cycles, Dansgaard believes, represents a regular variation in the Sun which affects its output of energy. Therefore he ventures to let the cycles run on a little way into the decades ahead.

Here is Dansgaard’s 1970 ultra-long-range weather forecast:
===
… the climate will continue to grow colder during the 1970s and early 1980s; then it will become gradually warmer again so that by 2015
we shall be back to where we were in 1960—no better; and after that it will start becoming colder again. In short, the outlook for the
next fifty years is decidedly chilly.
===

It’s still a good fit … and there was nothing CO2 or GHGs contributed to that.

11 Jan: Montel News: Germany may see “extreme” cold at end of January
Temperatures in Germany could fall as low as 5C below normal at the end of January with “extreme levels” in some parts of the country, according to weather service MetDesk.
Glen Spencer of the UK’s MetDesk said temperatures in EU’s biggest energy market could be 2-5C below the norm in the week starting 28 January.
There would be “more anomalously colder [weather] than week 4 by up to a degree or two, and pushing extreme levels in some parts”, he said…

Nevertheless, the meteorologists stopped short of comparing temperatures with those of last winter when a blast of freezing weather from Siberia pushed levels down to well below zero across northern Europe…

And if Joe Bastardi is correct, which I’m pretty sure he is, repeated snow storms and frigid temps will be the norm for most of the US and Europe right through February and into March.

In the late 80s when I was at Bad Tolz in Bavaria we would love the kind of snow they’re getting in the German Alps right now and be heading to the Brauneck to enjoy the waist deep powder off-piste. The best winter I did not go without skiing for more than one day during a period starting in October in Austria on a glacier for the SF ski instructor evaluation and ending in early April in Sud Tirol in the area of Vipiteno, Italy attending the Italian SF ski training and subsequent exercise.

Now such winter weather is considered abnormal and something to be feared by the alarmist mongers.

Of course the alarmists want to forget that their party line used to be that “climate change” would result in a general decrease in snow cover/extent. That prompted all kinds of predictions and hand wringing about the demise of the ski industries in the US and Europe. So what they claimed would happen has not and thus they now claim the fact that spring extent is a little down is proof of “climate change”. Never mind the fact that overall for all seasons extent is stable showing no real trend and thus the other seasons must be making up for the slight decrease in spring extent.

When I posted a bunch of links dating back to 2014 showing the alarmism about the ski industries failing due to lack of snow I was asked to quote specific lines from the articles to prove something or other. So typical of alarmists. When backed into a corner they demand that you spoon feed them even after you provide the links that expose their lie. I refuse generally. I have better things to do than spoon feed them and wipe their chins for them when I know that it isn’t going to make a lick of difference.

BTW Joe Bastardi and the guys at https://www.weatherbell.com/ were light years ahead of the models in forecasting what we have now in the NH and what is coming down the pike, which in the Europe’s near future is a beast from the east of Arctic cold. That’s the difference between a private company who’s revenue and very existence is determined by performance and government entities who’s continued funding is not based on performance or that lack of it.

Wide spread snow falls are like self fulfilling prophecies. They increase the Libido so it does not warm up as quickly. I remember that from the 1947 winter in the UK. Snow still hanging around at Easter that had been precipitated the previous Boxing day!

I think it was 2013 that there was still loads of snow at the Tan Hill Inn in the Yorkshire Dales, in mid April. It was in 1963 that I saw the last heap of snow on the 1st March in Richmond Park near London, where it would have disappeared earlier than further north and in rural areas.

I’m a truck driver and thus have to deal with the reality of this kind of weather on the road but I will always Love it because it’s hard to find more pure beauty and peace than one will find in a winter wonderland.

That’s beautiful RAH. There are some stunning pics and videos of snow from lots of places in the Northern Hemisphere. I love the look of it and the peacefulness when the snow seems to mute traffic noise.

Got in from the road yesterday early in the morning and restocked by seed blocks and filled my 8 lb. feeder. When the snow covers the ground the birds really hit them hard. We’re forecast to get 4 to 8″ here in the center of Hoosier land, but looking out my window, it hasn’t started yet.

They also like cheese. In fact the male of the family (nesting in the huge gum tree behind the block) will take a bit of whatever (stale bread, seeds etc) then come and stand 5 feet from me and put his head on one side (he knows what the cheese packet looks like).
They will also go and check out the seed tray for sunflower seeds, but that is definitely a secondary interest.

King Parrots used to feed from my hand at the rental property we were in while building our house. I don’t encourage them to do that here as they wreck my damsons at all stages; flower buds, mini- fruit and nowhere-near-ripe fruit. As do the lorikeets, rosellas, cockatoos (the sulphur-crested thug variety), etc. etc.

When we were in Rockhampton, we had a Magpie two homes across the back fence, and he would often graze on our back lawn, and you’d just watch him listening for the grubs underground. Each year, he and his ‘mate’ would nest in the same tree, and produce one chick, and after nesting and finally ‘getting his wings’ the chick would follow Mum and Dad into our back yard, always a good source of tucker. Always just the one young following the two adults around.

Now here in Beenleigh, we have a nesting pair, again two homes across and we watch from our balcony as the adults feed in the vacant lot between us and their nest in the tall Pine tree, in a group of about five of those large pines.

However, this pair had two young this season, and after they got their wings they would follow Mum and dad into that vacant lot to root up worms and grubs, the two following Mum or dad, and squawking away as the young ones do.

And now, just in the last week/ten days, there have been two further young, and you can tell because their feathers are still fluffy, they squawk, rather than the typical Magpie warble, and they waddle around after Mum and Dad, begging to be fed. Four young and two adults, and that’s the first time I have seen that. It’s just so odd, watching the six of them together.

Here in my little corner of heaven in Indiana we have barn swallows. They made mud nests on the walls of the unused concrete block chimney of my neighbors garage during the summer. Very quick and maneuverable insect eaters. When I’m mowing they swoop down around me to catch any insects the mower kicks up. Beautiful birds to watch fly. In the evening when they get ready to go down the chimney and roost for the night they fly around in formation and making multiple passes above the chimney. One then peels off and goes down. Around they come again and another goes down until all are in their roost for the night.

Supplement feeding three baby magpies and their parents Devon worms and now it seems the fairy wrens are getting partial to the taste and pinching the odd few from the magpies .
Had three juvenile King Parrots up at the pool in the shade cooling off yesterday and they seem to like the mist fan I set up for them .

Our magpies love the small wibble wobble sprinkler when it’s on near the citrus trees. At present it’s watering the very ordinary ‘grass’ around the house, using dam water. Part of our safety regime…needed as the massive gum trees along the road keep dropping fire happy rubbish, leaves, twigs and branches.
We have a pair of magpies with two young. The young make a strange noise when they are begging for food. They carry on even when they are much the same size as the parents, who begin to look a bit frazzled by Christmas!
BTW, the southern hemisphere magpie is not the same as the northern hemisphere one. They look very similar and behave in a remarkably similar way. I can’t remember their formal labels, will have to look that up again.

“…but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.”

He may posture now as one of the good guys…but the above comment contains all the hubris, manipulation and illogicality we’ve come to expect of the climatariat. Could a comment be any weirder? You don’t know the score so you’ll dish out equal scores to the top three players? Anastasios, the whole point is to find out the score or clam up.

Sorry, but they all have to go off in disgrace. None of their reputations are worth sparing, none of their recantations are worth hearing. Lukewarmers like Tsonis and Curry only serve to keep the climatariat in business for longer. Let’s repeat it: there never was any evidence that the present interglacial is warmer than the previous one, there never was any evidence that any present warming within this interglacial is exceptional compared to numerous other warm episodes over the last ten thousand years. In fact, all the evidence points to warmer conditions and higher sea levels earlier in our interglacial, especially in the period eight to six thousand years back. How has it been possible to ignore all of this? Because you get a doctorate in atmospheric science you don’t have to worry about natural history, geology and the rest?

Bill, 1/3 is how real nonsense works. He has been juggling for so long he has forgotten what a straight statement sounds like. How could a real scholar come up with such a masterpiece of evasion and absurdity after a life of study?

It would indeed be something if his “light” was announced to the Washington Post world. In fact, his article appears in the Washington Times, the Moonies-founded conservative daily which at least brings a bit of balance to the mainstream. This sort of article is not unusual for the Times.

As for Judith Curry, I remember when, not that many years ago. she was blaming all the climatariat’s failings on “communication” problems only. This “communicator” was herself so evasive and matronising that it was impossible to grasp any point except that the IPCC were still the good guys, they just needed our understanding. Since then she has attracted skeptics by embracing many of their themes and giving a platform to some real skepticism, but the overall effect is to keep us close to the corral. Reminiscent of Tsonis’ outrageous 1/3 approach, Curry often retreats into navel-gazey reflections on uncertainty/certainty that are designed to mean nothing but which keep us engaged in the climate twistiness.

Like the Vicar of Brae, I don’t doubt that these people will be full-time skeptics when it suits, just as they were climate careerists and lukewarmers when it suited. But we need to kick this nasty climate racket to the kerb right away. For no country is this more urgent than for Australia.

Doing everything I can to makes sure people see that the very basis of so-called AGW is totally without any scientifically supportable data.

I find it quite bizarre/hilarious watching AGW apologists like pfutz squirm around trying to avoid this most basic issue or trying to make totally unsupportable connections in a vain attempt to try and support the unsupportable..

Bill,
one of the most obvious points is that this recently retired professor has not “seen the light” and has clearly demonstrated that he has no scientific understanding of the topic.

What he has done is make a political decision to be the man for all seasons.

Closer to home,

The incoherent projectile verbiage coming from the current visitor from SkS and the previous human rights advocate of a few months back who has, completely by chance, reappeared today, is a good indicator of where our society is headed.

USA has Trump, Britain has Brexit and however disruptive they may be they have hope.

Australia has elections coming and we don’t seem to be at all concerned that the only choice we have is between the Big Grabbers Parti and the Bigger Grabbers Parti.

USA and Britain are facing their future: we are still getting over the heat and excitement of Christmas, New Year.

How dare anyone have air conditioning, we were in Alice Springs in January 4 years ago and it was mostly in the 40′s with one day a supposed record while at Uluru.
Spent a year up the road at Tennant Creek and it gets hot , bloody hot and all normal .

How dare anyone have the wheel, the plough, printing press, telescope, coal, the steam engine … serfs putting yourselves above the beasts of the field. Know you be responsible for all that we inner city green elites, (recognized by our wearing of sandals and scarves-at week ends) find wrong with the world. Be off, back to ditches, hedge rows, hovels, sloughs, like the beasts of the fields that you are, do not think to raise yourselves above them. We the City Central Elites, representatives of the Church of Globull have spoken.

11 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Seven EU nations miss climate and energy plan deadline
By Sam Morgan for Euractiv
All 28 EU members had until 31 December 2018 to hand in their plans to the EU executive to have their efforts audited and checked against the bloc’s new clean energy laws, including energy efficiency and renewable energy uptake.
But sources have revealed that Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg and Spain are yet to turn in their homework…

Germany is among those to have turned in patchy plans, according to German media, who have seen a copy of Berlin’s 140-page-long effort which is reportedly only “provisional”.
Austria’s draft plan has also been criticised by the government’s own inter-ministerial expert group, which concluded that the measures proposed are not enough to meet set targets…
More broadly, the plans that have been submitted already have been largely appraised by environment groups as more reporting exercises than coherent strategies…

Several of my fellow company drivers are stuck out on I-70 in Missouri. I feel sorry for the folks in cars stranded, but for the truckers with sleepers it’s not a big deal as long as the driver has properly prepared. Keep the fuel level at half or above. Keep five days provisions in the truck and your good to go as long as you don’t suffer a mechanical problem. The only loss is thus the pay for miles and even that is in part made up for by most companies since the pay “lay over” pay in such situations if a driver is stuck more than 24 hours.

RAH, late December 1989 I had a ‘driveaway car’ (V6 Mercury or something) to deliver from NY to Denver; got on the I-70 in Penn and headed west into an overnight blizzard. Cars and trucks were off the road in all sorts of pile ups as my trusty steed purred towards the Rockies. Kansas was a picture postcard when the sun came out: big blue sky, white as far as the eye could see, old abandoned homesteads with obligatory wind vanes all rusted and silent. Through Denver, past Red Rocks, up into the mountains, through Eisenhower Tunnel and KAPOW! Summit County and Ten Mile Range and Breckenridge – thought I was in Shangri-La, ooh la la. Drove back to Denver the next day, dropped off the car, got my $300 deposit returned and caught a bus back to Breck where I lived for 2 years. The engineering skills used to put through that ‘road’ were astounding. The old Loveland Pass was a favourite for us mad back-country powder fiends and lovers of tree-laden snow chutes and deep DEEP glades… bliss. Drive safely.

When I was doing long haul and ran back and forth quite often between the east and west coasts and any points in between I or we(would be team driving quite often) would avoid taking I-70 if at all possible during the winter. Going to S. California would take I-40. Going to N. California take I-80 and go through the Donner pass. The reason for that is that Colorado is the only state that requires truckers to put chains on all drive tires of the tractor and all tires on the trailer in snowy conditions in the mountains. All the other states allow you to alternate. Really there is something good to be said for the views along any of the major east west Interstates when one gets out west. Lots of interesting stuff along I-40 in Arizona. Painted desert, petrified forest, Flagstaff, etc. Never had to chain up along I-40.

Now you’ll have to excuse me while I shovel about 4″ of global warming off my deck and walk. Still coming down and is forecast to snow on and off through Sunday morning so it’s best to get ahead of it. Not to the level yet where I have to break out the snow blower to clear the drive. Times like these I’m especially glad I have a Toyota FJ Cruiser to break trail.

Well, I’ll be heading in the direction the snow is at 01:00 Monday morning. Delivery of Nestles product to Breinigsville, PA in the Eastern part of the state. Hopefully they’ll have the mess cleaned up by the time I go that way. This snow is moving from west to east-north-east and will bring heavy accumulations in the mountains of PA.

Went to a birthday party and came back and shoveled another 3″ of Global Warming off the deck. So 7″ so far and still coming down. Winter storm warning remains in effect. Everything around my place is white, clean, and beautiful. Had a little fun in taking the unplowed back roads home in the FJ. Really safer than taking the main drags because I know I can handle it but am not so confident in others.

Things change. Got a call last night. Not going to PA on Monday and instead am departing at 07:00 today(Sunday) with a load bound for somewhere in Connecticut. My backhaul will be out of somewhere in Massachusetts. I’m not complaining. This allows me to take a route that takes me north of the path of the winter storm that has now passed over my place in Indiana and left about 7″ of global warming here.

The main reason that people respond to the likes of Peter F is that we are here to learn and try to understand the social phenomenon of Man Made Global Warming _ save the planet or else, as detailed by the broad church of CAGW.

This is not a scientific issue: it is pure politics, but only when we have exposed the false science can we begin to look at the politics and the Money Flow.

Andy has responded to the bulk of material posted and others have lent time and effort.
The main purpose in responding has been to attach a label to that stream of comment that identifies it as lacking scientific coherence and therefore also lacking in Truth.

Our concern is that readers of the blog known as Skeptical Science may come to this blog, see comments by PF and assume that they are accepted as truth.

An understanding of real science is hard to come by as witness the ease with which the politicians have been able to bring large areas of the formerly civilised world down into the new world order. Europe and Britain are in chaos. Australia and New Zealand are on the brink of collapse from the eco assault.

Having a blog to work through the issues not clearly covered by the media is important, so protecting it from disruption by SkScience drones who have no intention of contributing or learning, is something to consider.

Peter is not a troll because he is talking about CO2 and temperature, its up to us to prove him wrong through the force of our arguments. Explained simply, for the scientific illiterate, in the hope that the new broom at Sky News accepts the idea that CO2 is a harmless trace gas.

You only get 100% proofs in mathematics.
The fact that you’ve got a very short list of sceptical climate scientists does not upset the consensus, they have yet to provide evidence.
That’s science for you

however, this paper would be right up their alley:Glaciers, gender, and science:
A feminist glaciology framework
for global environmental change
research
Mark Carey, M Jackson, Alessandro Antonello and Jaclyn Rushing
University of Oregon, USAAbstract
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among
gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of
glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework
with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of
scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science
studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender,
power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable
science and human-ice interactions

Very good points Michael262. However according to AndyG55 and Kinky Kieth, you can not reference any IPCC reports, any NASA, or any other government agency, an of course anything from a university. That does limit any science or scientific debate somewhat.

Peter @ 42.2
I presume your sarcasm ?.
You and others have shoved evidence under the noses of these guys ( for years ?) only to be dismissed with conspiracy theories and demands for yet more evidence.
This science free site is purely about ideology, that’s why arguing with facts is pointless, just ask their brains trust, Andy.
No amount will convince them, yet they fail to get any of their own ‘evidence’ to stick in the real World, sad really.

Grab the skies and head for the slopes! I Love the Alps because of the snow and because usually the temperatures are not nearly as bitter cold as one will experience in the Rockies in the western US or the Green Mountains of Vermont or White Mountains of New Hampshire. I have spent a lot of time during winter months outside in all of those places and I’m telling you that the mountains in New England, though not that high, have a cold that hurts more. I can’t define it but 0 deg. F in the white mountains feels considerably colder than 0 deg. F in the Alps. The only place in Europe where I felt cold with the sharp and bitter character as is found in the NE US was up at Dumbas, Norway.

Well, your mate Fitzroy is asked for evidence, and so far has huffed and puffed but offered nothing…..

Science is evidence based, not politics based. So far all weve seen from Fitzroy is random urls and fillibsuter, which is the type of repsonse youd get from someone who lacks knowledge or has a great future in politics.

Often we’d label people like that time wasters or trolls…take your pick.

8 Jan: GreekReporter: Record Low Temperatures Recorded in Florina, Northern Greece (video)
By Tasos Kokkinidis
Highway traffic, rail and bus services were disrupted across northern Greece, where an all-time record low of -23 degrees Celsius (-9 Fahrenheit) was recorded in the city of Florina.
The thermometer in Nevrokopi, in the Drama region, showed -21 C and in Neos Kafkasos, in the Florina region, temperatures of -20.4 C were recorded.

Extremely low temperatures were also recorded in the city of Grevena, where residents experienced -19.9 C, and in the village of Vovousa, in the Ioannina region, where they reached -19.5C.
The town of Mavrolithari in the Fokida region logged a temperature of -19.3C, in Ptolemaida -18.5 C was recorded, and in the village of Pertouli, in the Trikala region, temperatures dropped to -17.5 C.
Extremely low temperatures were also experienced in Kozani, where -13 C was recorded, and it got down to -12 C in Kastoria.

Meaningless average temperatures.
The average temperature of the world is reportedly about 16°C, about 1°C above pre-industrial times, and according to the IPCC a further 0.5-1.0°C rise will be devastating/catastrophic – that much warming could expose tens of millions more people worldwide to life-threatening heat waves, water shortages and coastal flooding. Half a degree may mean the difference between a world with coral reefs and Arctic summer sea ice and a world without them.
So I wonder how we are surviving in Australia? According to BOM, the 1961-1990 average temperature in Australia was 21.8°C, and since then the average has climbed by a further 1°C. The average maximum temperature has climbed from 28.6°C to 29.6°C, compared to just 28.1°C back in 1910. And over the century the average minimum temperature has climbed from 14.6°C to 15.7°C.
But average rainfall has gone from 450mm to 500mm.
How have we survived?

Too bad there are plenty more where he came from to continue the greatest scam of all time. Now if thousands of scientists resigned in protest against the scam perhaps we would make some progress in exposing the scam to all and turn things around. I’m dreaming again.

13 Jan: Daily Mail: Tanks roll in to frozen hell: Germany and Austria call state of emergency as troops save residents from NECK-DEEP snow after 21 deaths in worst winter for more than 30 years
By Rod Ardehali For Mailonline and Nick Craven for The Mail on Sunday
Tanks and troops were drafted in to rescue homeowners from neck-deep snow in Germany and Austria as the whiteout looked to continue past the weekend…
‘Such quantities of snow above 800m altitude only happen once every 30 to 100 years,’ said Austrian meteorologist Alexander Radlherr…

VIDEO: 2min41sec: South Germany experiencing state of emergency for heavy snowfall

And there are many forecasts that say there will be PLENTY more of that snow stuff coming to central Europe.

All major national and international weather models (GFS, ECMWF, UKMO, GEM, ICON, ARPEGE, JMA, NAVGEM), after about January 20th are showing a large freeze expected to most parts of Europe. Some longer range model (CFS, JMA, UKMO, Beijing Climate Center, etc.) are all showing that it may last until the end of February.

“Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, 8 Feb 2006
~~~~~~~~~

“The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.“
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), 2 March 2007

~~~~~~~~~
“We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010
~~~~~~~~~
“Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000
.
.
.
And so many more utterly inaccurate predictions (from 2013) are listed here http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/04/climate-science-humiliated-earlier-model-prognoses-of-warmer-winters-now-todays-laughingstocks/

“All major national and international weather models (GFS, ECMWF, UKMO, GEM, ICON, ARPEGE, JMA, NAVGEM), after about January 20th are showing a large freeze expected to most parts of Europe. Some longer range model (CFS, JMA, UKMO, Beijing Climate Center, etc.) are all showing that it may last until the end of February.”

8 Jan: Siberian Times: Coldest race in the world is run at -52C in Yakutia
Sixteen runners braved extreme temperatures at the Pole of Cold.
The daring athletes – the youngest was 21, and oldest 71, all extremely well-trained – travelled 928 kilometres north-east of Yakutsk to the world’s coldest inhabited village of Oymyakon.
Bone-chilling marathons for five, ten, 20, 30 and 42 kilometres were organised on 5 January.
At the beginning of the run the air temperature was minus 52 Celsius; by the time the last – and only! – sportsman made it past the mark of 39km it ‘warmed’ to minus 48C.

‘We wanted to make running in -45C and colder more popular, and to show that athletes can adapt to extremely low temperatures’, said Russian champion runner Yegor Abramov.
‘We could see utter amazement in the eyes of tourists that travelled here from Australia, Taiwan, Japan and India to watch the world’s coldest race’, said runner Sargylana Neustroyeva.
‘This was our first try at organising the extremely cold marathon.
‘Next year we are definitely doing another race, all athletes from around the world are welcome!’

One thing I’ve noticed with the Left is they often accuse their opponents of the exact crimes they themselves have committed….it throws people off the scent and gives them an appearance ( only ) of respectability.

The Left remind me of a dog in the house…its only a matter of time before it poops on the floor….

12 Jan: Psychology Today: Climate Change Denial
Facing a reality too big to believe
by Sara Gorman & Jack M. Gorman
A recent report from the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us we can still hope to avert some of the catastrophic consequences of climate change, but only if we “abandon coal and other fossil fuels in the next decade or two.” Scientists may disagree about how fast the atmosphere is warming or what the best solutions are, but except for a small number of outliers, none doubt that we are rapidly approaching climate catastrophe.

That a few misguided politicians believe climate change predictions are exaggerated or even fabricated is lamentable. But perhaps more puzzling is the lack of alarm among the general public..
Polls tell us that many people are worried about climate change, but that does not seem to motivate much willingness to take action to mitigate it. Others deny that climate change is either occurring at all or that it represents any significant threat to civilization…

One reason for the refusal to accept the reality of climate change is what is called “motivated interference,” which occurs when we hold a specific bias to ignore evidence. As science writer Nicole Mortillaro noted (LINK), this can include a general unease with large government projects that are expensive and interfere with individuals’ lives…

Right now, as we write this article, it is freezing cold in the Northeast and snow covers much of the country. No hurricanes are forecast at the moment and the fires in California are said for now to be under control. How easy it is to shut the bad news away and look to deal with more tractable problems. Even poverty, war, and famine seem more easily solved than climate change…
Climate change denial is in some ways a new mental process for psychologists to understand…

Ultimately, only large-scale political activity has any chance of saving civilization from the oncoming ravages of continued greenhouse gas emissions. Entire nations must come together as they did in forging the Paris Climate Agreement and agree to enforce what will have to be very extensive and often highly inconvenient changes in our sources of energy and food. It is true that replacing oil and gas with sustainable energy and switching to plant-based diets will be difficult and even painful for some, but the alternative—continuing to ignore that climate change is already affecting us and will ultimately be catastrophic—is of course much worse…https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/denying-the-grave/201901/climate-change-denial

About the authors:
Sara E. Gorman, PhD, MPH, is a public health specialist working on mental health, suicide prevention, and increasing the quality of evidence in the public health field. She is currently Director of High School Programming at The Jed Foundation (JED), a non-profit focused on mental health and suicide prevention among teens and young adults. She has written extensively about mental health, psychology, global health, and women’s health, among other topics, for a variety of health and medical journals. Her work has appeared or been reviewed in The Atlantic, The New Yorker, The Guardian, BBC, NPR, Science, and Scientific American, among others. She is co-author of Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us (Oxford University Press), along with her father Jack M. Gorman, MD.

Jack M. Gorman, MD, was Professor and Chair of Psychiatry and Professor of Neuroscience at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and on the faculty of Columbia University’s Department of Psychiatry for 25 years. He is CEO and Chief Scientific Officer of Franklin Behavioral Health Consultants. He is co-author of Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us (Oxford University Press), along with his daughter Sara E. Gorman, PhD, MPH. His new book, Neuroscience at the Intersection of Mind and Brain (Oxford, 2018), describes in accessible prose recent developments in neuroscience, with special emphasis on how these findings relate to mental health, emotions, and psychotherapy.

He’s commenting on the content of a particular belief held by someone and that isn’t real psychology.

Real psychology is the study of the effects of external stimuli on the human being. It deals with the nature of the stimulus, the processing of it and the storage in memory and linking with previous experience.

The content of the material being processed is only relevant in terms of whether it is threatening, pleasant, exciting or intellectually engaging.

For a so called scientist to comment like this on the basis of his own flawed assessment of the thing is beyond belief.

But then he wears a suit, has several employees, is “successful” and knows that, with all that flash, just like Goebels, he can say anything and not be questioned.

In the end, it all ends with the science of gases failing to confirm the possibility of Man Made Global Warming.

Even there we do have an evolutionary process at work where the Imperial Evidence is passed down from one high at the IPCCCCC to individual nations and to workshops and trained media science commentators.
It eventually ends up at street level as: Group Think.

it’s all in the banned list, you know the stuff you refuse to read. Any IPCC reports, any NASA, or any other government agency, an of course anything from a university, now of course we’ll add Scientific American and New Scientist to that list. Oh and the Real Climate website would be on the banned list as well.

Group think from unthinking lefties is always the IPCC , but the IPCC said this or the IPCC said that and to a true no brain alfoil hat wearing lefty that’s evidence and that’s all that matters .
You can be up to your neck in snow and ice but it’s definitely warm , floods in Pakistan are a sign , so to a fire somewhere regardless of the real cause .
Keep sprouting the party line , keep up with the ideological drivel there is no need for evidence just believe .
Arguing with Fitz or Phil is pointless because their minuscule brain has been taken over by the greater good .
If they really had anything of substance to offer they would have done it by now but no ,all they can do is offer links to unscientific rabble .
If they really want to put us in our place they would have come up with some hard evidence but no we get the IPCC and California wildfires and a few floods that’s it , pathetic and symbolic of your cause trolls .

Even if we some all CO2 emissions nature will carry on. Termites will vent CO2 and methane. As I have posted before there are rather a lot of these critters in Africa and in Brazil there is a 4,000 year old termite mounds.
I wonder how the venting of gases from all this natural life varies with the climate.

Researchers reporting in Current Biology on November 19 have found that a vast array of regularly spaced, still-inhabited termite mounds in northeastern Brazil–covering an area the size of Great Britain–are up to about 4,000 years old.

The mounds, which are easily visible on Google Earth, are not nests. Rather, they are the result of the insects’ slow and steady excavation of a network of interconnected underground tunnels. The termites’ activities over thousands of years has resulted in huge quantities of soil deposited in approximately 200 million cone-shaped mounds, each about 2.5 meters tall and 9 meters across.

As a hardline skep, I really have trouble with this idea of a world temp.

What on earth is the point of comparing past and present temps unless you know everything about siting and everything about cloud in a massive number of places over a very long period? Cloud above all, as it plays havoc with max and min.

To me it matters not a jot if they earth is cooling somewhat or warming somewhat. May as well worry about whether a clock needle is on the right or left of the dial. It can only go two places, temps can only trend up or down.

But imagine a cooling world: it would be a drier world in most places, no snow in Alaska possibly, not enough rain in Oz, which the world be depending on for food production with the shortening of seasons in bread-baskets of the northern hemisphere.

Think such a cooling world wouldn’t be without blazing high maxima? Think again. Think what actual global warming has meant through the existence of our planet, consider what it meant for the Sahara during the pluvial of the Optimum less than six thousand years back.

Think you won’t get higher maxima in a cooling world with less cloud?

All statistics are lame, statistics without commonsense interpretation are sheer bunk.

It’s very hard to accept a world wide temperature for a lot of reasons. The first is whether it is at all meaningful, even if you had all the data for all the world for all time. Then the weightings. How do you balance -50C in Antarctica with +47C in Dubai? Is the average of 0C a measure of anything?

This all gets very silly when the water around the Great Barrier Reef gets hotter than usual but the water off the coast of Western Australia gets colder than usual. One is man made Global Warming and the other is simply not mentioned. Why aren’t they using their world temperature? How does that relate to the water temperature, the greatest cause of extreme weather including all hurricanes, tropical and catastrophic storms and the only reason England is not frozen solid in winter like Russia.

Then the oceans, the greatest heat sink on the surface of the planet, averaging 3.4Km deep at 1 atmosphere in weight per 10 metres, so 340x the weight of the air. All our weather comes from water, the real green house gas. It is also not invisible, so clearly it blocks a lot more light and heat than largely invisible CO2, but we measure air temperature. At what altitude?

It’s all nonsense. A world temperature. We even have an Australian temperature, which we are told is higher than normal so we have a terrible, terrible Australian heat wave. It reached 29C in Melbourne today after a start around 14C. According to the BOM, as I read every day, we are frying. I remember one January where all but 3 days were over 30C but so far we have two or three over 30C. According to the BOM, it is one of the hottest years on record. Rubbish.

I know the BOM loves the publicity, but it would be better to talk about where people actually live, not average in the Simpson desert. How do you average Hobart and Broome? What does it mean if you do?

So I agree. A world temperature is even sillier than an Australian temperature.

Yes, a made up number across the whole planet, day and night, summer and winter and within a very short distance of the surface. Publishing a ‘methodology’ and having a scientific basis for creating a meaningful single number are quite different things.

So which is more important, summer at sea level during the day time in the Sahara or simultaneous winter at midnight at the South Pole at 4km in the air? An a variation in this manufactured number of 1C means what exactly and where and when?

Or do we just then average all this over a long time, searching for significance? A single number to describe an incredibly complex series of systems on a planetary scale, a planetary temperature like Mars or Venus?

Now try to tie variations in that number to a 50% change in a single gas which is only 0.04% of the atmosphere?

Consider that at 1/400th of the mass of the water which covers 75% of the planet, it would be more meaningful to measure water temperature to see what is happening to nett radiant heat than to measure a fantasy average of thin turbulent layer of gas at the surface.

As for ‘methodology’ I would love to know. I thought the planetary temperature was simply a sum of a lot of numbers divided by a lot more numbers. You have to weight it with area represented but apart from that I was not aware there was anything else done to constitute a methodology. It is an ‘average’ across a planet at all latitudes and all seasons, day and night. Having lived in a place which was -40C in winter and +40C in summer with cold years and hot ones, I wonder what the average means and what it measures just in the one place.

There is also the fallacy that if you add up a lot of numbers, you get incredible accuracy. In this way people actually attach significance to a ‘world temperature’ to amounts like 0.001C and even 0.1C and 1C. There is no justification in this. The number is artificial, not real and not connected to any specific process but thousands of events so movements in this number has no specific meaning.

And then unlike a uniform isolated black sphere, our planet travels in an elliptical orbit with a nutating axis and the sun itself travels through a galaxy with dust and both rotates and varies in total radiation. No constant source of heat and a colourful body which actually reacts to changing conditions. Water changes the colour to green in some areas and highly reflective as ice and clouds form, reflecting and blocking radiation while there are massive currents in the air and the water on a planetary scale while the sphere spins and has a large satellite. From all this we want to assign responsiblity for change to an insignificant largely invisible gas?

If there was a scientific consensus, it is that the major green house gas by far is water and that CO2 on its own is not enough to have more than a tiny effect on a small band of infra red light. The other effects greatly outweigh all this. Clouds can turn day into night.

So a world temperature? It’s hard enough to give a single temperature for Australia, balancing Hobart and Broome, tropical oceans and baking desert. What would such a temperature mean? What would a variation of 0.1C in that average mean? Very little. You need a proven model for the whole country which involves that special number. No one has one.

When I say insignificant, I mean as to temperature. CO2 is in fact the basis of every living thing on this planet. Without CO2 there would be no life. All plants come from CO2 and H2O and sunlight. I suppose even today people would not believe a 50 tonne tree comes from the air. If it came from the ground, there would be a hole around the tree.

TdeF
You are correct – there is no such thing as an average temperature anywhere – it is an abstract thing and because temperature is directly proportional to pressure, without reference to pressure and altitude it is meaningless to compare different locations. Look at the different weather stations in the Sydney area and you will not find the exact same, temperature, QNH pressure, wind speed and direction, Dry bulb, dew point, rain fall, humidity etc and all the different measuring locations. Many of the BOM sites record faulty data on a continuing basis. In the middle of August I was in Winton checking the weather before departing to the north west of the state and at 6.30 AM the temperature at Mt.Isa was 1 C whilst at Cloncurry 50 miles to the east it was 13 C which it could not possibly be. Calm conditions with a big high, the same pressure over a wide area and not a great difference in altitude above sea level meant Cloncurry’s temperature was wrong by at least 10 C as the Mt. Isa temperature was definitely correct.

This was always fake news , it’s the ones who learnt to count and did earth science in primary school that know CAGW is horse hockey and they are usually older as the school system has been broke for years .

Was it Friday’s The West Australian that had a front page article that the
oceans are warming faster the first thought? The article cited the oceans
were releasing CO2……….. .

Now, the scientist was possibly seen as a true believer – to have been funded – but
I haven’t seen a public news outlet previously daring to say that warming oceans release
CO2, even when known in old science. The ‘person in the street’ wouldn’t be aware of this old fact.
I would have thought such a statement from a scientist, even if he or she was
very naive in making it, would have been worth any journalist who wasn’t aware
of the scientific fact, grabbing it, run with the statement and ask the next obvious question:
‘How does that relate to the rising CO2 of the globe and the ‘warming’? Isn’t that
an indication that the CO2 rise may actually be due to warming oceans and not vice versa?’
The GBR would be next: Warming and CO2 given off should give the question about buffering
and alkalinising rather than acidifying. Soft shells from acidification? What acidification?

Quite true Doc! BECAUSE – if it were true, then we’d be toast already.

1. There is 50 tonnes of CO2 in the oceans for each tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature
3. The atmospheric CO2 content will be in equilibrium with the ocean’s CO2 content (Henry’s Law).

So.…

As soon as the oceans warm up (for whatever reason), then GUESS WHAT !! – the oceans release CO2 (even the IPCC know this).
Which, by the IPCC logic, means there’s a S/load of CO2 to release into the atmosphere
Which, they fervently believe, will cause more warming.

And guess what? We’re all stuffed – and life could NEVER happen on earth.

Tomorrow will be the anniversary of the day Bourke reached the peak of its 1896 heatwave. You might think 48.6 is no biggie compared to the 1960 reading at Oodnadatta, or the record 1903 reading at Bourke. But it’s the twenty other days, all consecutive, which mark out 1896 as a great climate disaster for much of NSW and beyond:

The minima topped 30 on five of these days, including 33.3 on the 24th. There was almost no rain, at least for Bourke, except for a relieving 27mm on the last day. The 1896 heatwave was a true climate tragedy involving evacuations and an official natural disaster death toll only (just) exceeded by the big heat of 1939. Above are only the numbers, but we also have the reportage and witness accounts (what some professional patronisers would call anecdotes) to leave us in no doubt as to the savagery of the event.

Here’s my point: if this were happening right now in NSW what do people think the reportage and commentary would be like? Would such an event be plundered for its propaganda potential or would it be accepted by media and academia as a natural misfortune? Well? Exactly! (Warmies please try to keep a straight face at this point.)

And there is the real danger of the climate racket. The powerful energy which would be our main defense against such climate extremes is blamed for those extremes.

Experts,I find generally take a lot more time and money to come to conclusions that are pretty obvious to a keen observer. The bleedin’ obvious. Modern scientists sit behind a computer looking at models. I have associated with academics for many years and find them a tedious lot on the whole.

All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics.

You appear to have neither — skepticism or proper grasp of what a real scientist should be.
¯
He also said –

All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled.

"Science is never settled." regardless of what Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings or Queens, or the UN-IPCC say!

Oh sorry Lord Hubris of Fitzroy,
We forgot we should all grovel at the feet of one of such high esteem and learning.
Please forgive us for ever doubting you and and the IPCC, for us believing that you were just another idjiot that has just crawled from under the bridge.

Oh great one tell us your great knowledge, you stinking pile of pompous $ħ|t!

How could you possibly judge my IQ as it is very evident from your comments that you are live in some virtual world where you feel you are so darn important and a font of so much knowledge. You know and repeat (parrot fashion) only the IPCC script

You may have certificates but by no measure does that make you a scientist (on climate matters) because being a scientist requires you to be skeptical of published result that can not be replicated (like those from Climate models).
Your evident lack of curiosity as to why the measurements made in so many aspects of the climate continue to diverge from IPCC projection speaks out that you are an advocate on this issue and not a scientist on it.
You apparently do not understand that science uses measurements (not just models) to justify a supposition (like human mediated global warming from CO2) i.e. science verifies it’s models against real world measurement. This has never happened with the models.

All in all you are just another empty vassal pretending to know about the climate.

And while we’re about it I challenge you to find out how the climate models approximate cloud cover over the earth and why it’s so unrealistic. However as I know already you have no curiosity you will find an piffling excuse not to find out!

Seriously my comment is about an expert in one field, expecting to be taken seriously in other. In reply to that, you go all schoolyard bully on me personally. So in that spirit Troll0mason, you are completely wrong about models, as they are tracking very closely to the observations. However, that will mean nothing to you as, like AndyG55, you have a banned list of sites like the IPCC, Scientific American, NASA etc. Good luck getting your info from the backs of cereal packets.

Experts are the engineers that build things, they have to understand in a very real sense, how things work. Some very scientist can also do this and are useful, talented, and imaginative people who further the scientific endeavor. So many other so called scientists and experts appear to be a waste of public money — excess baggage not fit to be a burger-flippers.

Your only point of reference so far appears to be IPCC and their Climate models, Scientific American, and NASA. Obviously you have never strayed outside those portals and so only have a very limited knowledge of the subject you pontificate about.

And while we’re about it I challenge you to find out how the climate models approximate cloud cover over the earth and why it’s so unrealistic. However as I know already you have no curiosity you will find an piffling excuse not to find out!

Climate is far from rocket science, PF, but the `mechanical engineer’ you so scoff at is a real rocket scientist.
You? A 0. Your comment, PF, clearly demonstrates—and explains—your abysmal ignorance and lack of intellect.

TOP TWEET: Interview announcement: we will be interviewing American psychologist and author ***Adam Grant @AdamMGrant live for our book club. Submit your questions for him at @wefbookclub or in the comments below, and we’ll select the best ones…
11 Jan 2018

11 Jan: Swissinfo: Another no-show: Macron pulls out of Davos to deal with street protests
Macron’s no-show is another blow for the WEF after US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday he would not be attending…

9 Jan: S&P Global: Saudi Arabia revises up oil reserves estimate to 268.5 billion barrels
Gas reserves, meanwhile, stood at 325.1 Tcf, an increase of 17.2 Tcf over the previous estimate, the audit revealed.
Saudi energy minister Khalid al-Falih said the audit confirms Aramco “is the most valuable company in the world,” given that the country’s reserves are among the least expensive globally to develop.
“This simply illustrates that the kingdom’s potential in meeting the world’s growing needs for oil and gas is quite staggering,” Falih said at a press briefing in Riyadh, according to media reports. “We are going to be quite ready to deliver on that.”…

Only Venezuela, another OPEC member, has comparable reserves at some 303.2 billion barrels, according to BP, much of it extra heavy oil that is energy- and capital-intensive to extract, in contrast to Saudi Arabia’s low-cost crude. Falih said Aramco’s cost of production averages about $4/b.

Russia and the US, who vie with Saudi Arabia to be the largest oil producer, hold only 156.2 billion barrels combined, according to BP…

12 Jan: UK Telegraph: Saudi Arabia has more oil than we may ever need
By Andy Critchlow
Saudi Arabia has finally silenced its peak-oil critics and simultaneously revived interest in its stalled $2 trillion (£1.6 trillion) plan for a stock market float of state-owned producer Aramco.
The kingdom revealed this week it has enough crude to pump at current rates for at least another 70 years. At the end of 2017, Saudi oil reserves stood at an eye-watering 268bn barrels, up from previous estimates of 266bn.
By comparison, the UK’s remaining cache of retrievable oil under the seabed of the North Sea will be almost completely drained, probably after another couple of decades…

11 Jan: CarlinEconomics: The Urgent Need for a Formal Reevaluation of Climate Alarmist Scam Science
by Alan Carlin
(Alan Carlin…carried out or supervised economic and scientific research on public policy issues for over 45 years, first at The RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California from 1963 to 1971, and from 1971 to 2010 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC. At no time has my salary been paid directly or indirectly by either natural resource development interests or non-governmental environmental organizations)

During my careers at RAND and EPA I carried out or supervised over two hundred policy-related studies on climate change, pollutant assessment, energy economics and development, environmental economics, transportation economics, benefit-cost analysis, and economic development. Those authored or co-authored by me are listed on the publications page

Questions over ‘foreign donations’ to activist group GetUp
The Australian-13 hours ago
The GetUp activist group received a large foreign donation “to promote climate change education” that was declared just days before a January 1 cut-off date…
GetUp said the $95,000 from the European Climate Foundation, received in December, was earmarked for “research” and denies it would be…

Labor and Greens riding on back of rogues in GetUp!
Daiy Telegraph – 12 Jan 2018
The destructive foreign-funded Green-Left activist organisation GetUp! has demonstrated its irrelevance to mainstream Australia, through the publication of its electoral goals, including stopping the Adani mine, Piers Akerman writes…

reminder from alarmist Murdoch media!

20 Dec 2018: news.com.au: Charis Chang: Big donation to GetUp spells trouble
(ALARMIST DAVID ATTENBOROUGH VIDEO)
A lobby group has made a $495,000 donation to GetUp and it has one issue in its sights ahead of the upcoming federal election.
EXCLUSIVE
Climate change is already shaping up to be a major election issue and a $495,000 donation to GetUp spells trouble for the beleaguered Adani coal mine.
Environmental group The Sunrise Project is providing the money to support its efforts to make climate change the number one issue at the next federal election.
Former Greenpeace activist John Hepburn, who is the founder and executive director of The Sunrise Project, said people had lost faith in Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s capacity to effectively tackle climate change.

“The community is crying out for political leaders who will stand up to multinational corporations like Adani which wants to force through its climate-wrecking projects, putting at risk Queensland’s precious water resources and adding fuel to the fire, cooking an already distressed Great Barrier Reef,” Mr Hepburn said.
“Political leadership is what’s needed to put a stop to Adani’s controversial coal mine. The world just can’t afford to mine and burn the coal from the Galilee Basin which is one of the largest untapped coal reserves in the world. If we do we will see even more dangerous climate change and extreme weather events in Australia such as fires, storms and droughts.”…

The organisation (Sunrise) gets part of its funding from the US-based charitable trust, the Sandler Foundation, which has led to it being criticised for being part of a co-ordinated push against coal…

Wikipedia: The European Climate Foundation is funded by the Nationale Postcode Loterij, The Arcadia Fund, The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, The ClimateWorks Foundation, The McCall MacBain Foundation, Oak Foundation, The Stordalen Foundation and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation…
The European Climate Foundation established CarbonBrief in the end of 2010…

European Climate Foundation: Supervisory Board
includes:
Stephen Brenninkmeijer (Chair)
He has been active in strategic investing since 2002, and founded Willows Investments UK in 2008 with the aim of supporting promising ventures with a social mission.
Since December 2018, Stephen serves as Chair of the European Climate Foundation’s Supervisory Board.
In addition, Stephen holds the following functions:
◾Member of the Board of Directors, World Resources Institute (USA) etc…

Kate Hampton (Vice Chair)
She became CEO of the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) in March 2016, after having served since 2009 as Executive Director of the CIFF Climate Change team. Ms Hampton was the first CIFF Executive Director for Climate Change…
Ms Hampton serves on a number of boards, including the European Climate Foundation Supervisory Board, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), and the Fundaciόn Climática de México…
Before joining CIFF she was Head of Policy at Climate Change Capital (CCC) – a boutique investment firm with $1.5 billion under management – and advised asset managers and multinational companies on clean energy opportunities…
Hampton was also Head of the Climate Change Campaign for Friends of the Earth (FoE) International; and managed the Green Alliance (GA) Green Globe Network, a civil society advisory group to the UK Foreign Office.
Earlier in her career Ms Hampton worked at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Environmental Resources Management (ERM). In 2008, she was named a World Economic Forum (WEF) Young Global Leader. She holds a BSc from the London School of Economics and a Master in Public Policy from the Harvard Kennedy School, where she was a Fulbright …

Connie Hedegaard
Connie Hedegaard served as European Commissioner for Climate Action from 2010 to 2014. During her term, she led negotiations towards adoption of the EU 2030 Climate and Energy Framework; was responsible for the 2050 Roadmap for a low-carbon economy; and represented the EU in international climate negotiations…
Ms Hedegaard currently holds several key positions in support of a low-carbon and green economy: She is the first Chair of the Board of the KR Foundation; the current Chair of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Round Table for Sustainable Development; Chair of the Board for the Danish green think tank CONCITO and Chair of the Board of Aarhus University…

Leonardo Lacerda
Leonardo Lacerda is the Environment Programme Director at Oak Foundation, a leading international grant-making organisation head-quartered in Switzerland…
Prior to Oak Foundation, Leonardo worked for 14 years with the WWF international network in various capacities, including the Latin America and Caribbean Programme Coordinator (Switzerland), Mediterranean Programme Director (Italy), Conservation Director of WWF Brazil, and Manager of the Global Forest Conservation Programme (Switzerland)…
He is a former board member of WWF Spain and WWF Greece…

Pascal Lamy
From September 2005 to August 2013, Pascal Lamy served for two consecutive terms as General Director- of the World Trade Organization (WTO). A committed European and member of the French Socialist party, he was Chief of Staff for the President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors from 1985 to 1994…
Pascal Lamy is author of various books and reports on global governance, Europe and international trade…

John Pershing
Program Director of Environment, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

Mary Robinson, President, Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice

Antha Williams – Bloomberg Philanthropies

Management Board
Laurence Tubiana, Chief Executive Officer
She is also the Chair of the Board of Governors at the French Development Agency (AFD) and a Professor at Sciences Po, Paris. Before joining the ECF, Laurence was France’s Climate Change Ambassador and Special Representative for COP21, and as such a key architect of the landmark Paris Agreement. Following COP21, she was appointed High Level Champion for climate action…
Laurence has held several academic positions, including as a Professor and Scientific Director for the International Development and Environmental Studies Master degrees at Sciences Po, Paris, and Professor of International Affairs at Columbia University, New York. She has been member of numerous boards and scientific committees, including the Chinese Committee on the Environment and International Development.https://europeanclimate.org/people/board/

Powering GetUp
GetUp is an independent campaigning community…
We’re fiercely independent – we’re not linked to any political parties, we don’t have or want charity status, and we don’t accept any funding from Government…

The Establishment is working hand in glove with the feral lefties and greenies…..

I suspect the smart ones are the guiding influence, and you have the armies of useful idiots ( like Peter Fitz-whatsit ) who are told to pee into the wind for the cause….

That said, the brains are likely the ruthless ones, who are happy to throw the leftie canon fodder at a problem while flying around in private jets bemoaning how “awful” it is.

All were seeing is how the world really works – the same people would beat the drum of nationalism and demand ( or conscript ) your son or daughter go fight in a war while, they were busy selling weapons to both sides of the war, in this war *they* started….

Quick , everyone in Victoriastan turn on as many electrical appliances as you can and turn up the aircon full bore .
At 2.30 they are forecasting a reserve shortfall so do your thing and help them out !

14 Jan: Australian Academy of Science: Fellows receive international awards and NHMRC grant
Academy Fellow and UNSW Professor John Church is the first Australian awarded the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in Climate Change for his work in detecting, understanding and projecting sea-level rise due to climate change.

He shares the prize and €400,000 prize money with French space geodesist Anny Cazenave, a specialist in satellite altimetry (the measurement of the form and dimensions of Earth) and British climate scientist Professor Johnathan Gregory, an expert in ocean heat uptake and climate sensitivity.

11 Jan: MetOfficeUK blog: Prestigious Award for Met Office scientist
A Met Office Hadley Centre scientist has won a prestigious award for his pioneering research into sea level rise and its response to anthropogenic climate change.
Professor Jonathan Gregory has been given a prestigious BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award (Climate Change category), together with Anny Cazenave (Director for Earth Sciences at the International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland) and Professor John Church (University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia)…

for the first
This is a possible explanation of the changing correlation between the North Atlantic Oscillation and solar activity.

for the second
The temporal relationship between the Suess solar cycle and particularly significant 210 yr oscillations in the speleothem δ18O records therefore supports the notion that solar variability played a significant role in driving centennial-scale changes in the hydrological cycle in the subtropics during the Holocene.

This is all in line with the NASA summary;The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

however;The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. (that is the empirical bit)

which gives;The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

“”Similar to the clear-sky study, we also provide the all-sky upwelling SW and LW fluxes to study the surface radiation budget under all-sky conditions. The rates of net SW and LW fluxes are −0.07 W/m^2 [per year] and −0.37 W/m^2 [per year], respectively, resulting in a decrease of 0.44 W/m^2 per year in NET flux at the surface (Figure 3b). The decline of NET flux, however, does not correlate with the increased surface air temperature as illustrated in Figure 3a. The surface air temperature is determined by the sum of NET radiation fluxes (downwelling and upwelling SW and LW fluxes) and nonradiative fluxes (sensible and latent heat fluxes, ground heat flux and energy flux used for melt), as well as the large-scale advection [Wild et al., 2004]. Wild et al. [2004] investigated this counterintuitive result and concluded that it may be due to a decrease of surface evaporation and associated reduced evaporative surface cooling.””

From chief NASA physicist (until forced to resign because he was correct

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi: C02 is not increasing energy to the system to change anything.

” According to my research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere. ”

” Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC. ”

“I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.”

See, actual data, real calculations, real physicist

…not a pathetic “must” from a computer game modeller and propaganda monkey.

So what did they prove?
They say –
“The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2.” This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation

But what about the other 90%? They don’t know, so don’t ask, eh?

Also note the authors started in the 2000 La Nina, and ended at the 2010 El Nino – when troposphere temperatures were half a degree warmer. Then they noticed that there was slightly more downwelling long wave radiation [DWLR], which they blamed on increased absorption from the increase in CO2.

Oh so yet again this warming of the atmosphere can not be due to internal variability, ocean oscillations, cloud cover changes, solar amplification mechanisms, etc because, because er….CO2! Well their very intensive computer modeling proved it — or that’s what they say.

No I’m very skeptical of their set-up, the cherry picked time period, and the use of UN-IPCC modeled output as the alleged verifier for their result. Climate models do not supply data, they only give results of mathematical process. (Even if they had used the correct IPCC figures from the correct formula (which they didn’t), the IPCC formula exaggerates CO2 surface radiative forcing by 45% over the observations.)

P.S.
And just to add a bit of spice to your argument the peak emission spectra of CO2 is at 15 microns, which by Wien’s displacement law is equivalent to a blackbody radiating at -80°C.
Per the second law of thermodynamics, a low temperature/frequency/energy body at -80°C cannot warm a higher temperature/frequency/energy body at the Earth’s 15C.

ALso
Abstract:
‘The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in
which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.’

“The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.”
It has never been demonstrated to work as advertised within this planet’s atmosphere. It has only been suggested and just like the sensitivity of CO2 has never been settled.

That value is enough to answer your assertion about Anthropomorphic C02. That is all it has to do.

As to Ferenc Miskolczi
‘The proof is now, presumably, held to be empirical. But what does empirical mean here? In the paper, Dr M makes frequent reference to plots of 228 points, which seem to have reasonable regression fits. But what are the points? He sometimes talks of (”selected” radiosonde readings, but there isn’t much detail offerred. And sometimes of simulations, using his code “HartCode”. In this site he assembles the results to prove the main principles, but the claim to their observational nature is somewhat undermined by the fact that he has similar graphs for Mars. It seems clear the results are simulations – how real-world observations fit in is quite unclear.

The key finding, often quoted, is that the greenhouse effect is limited. This result follows from his claim that the optical depth has a theoretical value (about 1.84), so if more CO2 is put into the atmosphere, somehow water is squeezed out. But that theoretical depth is based on a claim that the atmosphere must somehow optimise cooling, which he never justifies. Towards the end of this “proof” site, he lists comments from some of the referees of journals that rejected his paper. I don’t know why; the referees seem to make very strong points. On this particular point, one said: ”The overall concluding statement that ‘the existence of a stable climate requires a unique surface upward flux density and a unique optical depth of 1.841’ makes absolutely no sense at all. An atmosphere can be in stable radiative equilibrium for any LW optical depth, but the equilibrium surface temperature will monotonically depend on the value of the optical depth….” Quite right – the radiative balance can’t remove or add gases to the atmosphere’

Just to clarify…
My ‘it’ in “It has never been demonstrated to work …” refers to the CO2 component (and all the little termite that generate it)

Climate models have never worked out how to handle water in the atmosphere based on purely observed, measured, and known attributes that water present in the atmosphere.
That is to say they have no theoretical functional physical or mathematical model that works across all altitudes, temperatures, wind speed and direction for observed clouds types, humidity levels, or precipitation events.
What is done is the models are ‘tuned’ — aka ‘fudge’, and mix in aggressively high nucleation particulates to give it some sort of realistic value. Problem is these ‘tuned’ values are often not dynamic enough or occasionally too dynamic, to fit with real world outcomes.

But some people actually believe that UN-IPCC quoted but unverified Climate Models can really simulate the chaotic (and noisy) global climate. Sad really.

What are you about “Tallbloke the denıer”?
If you mean this fine chap does not adhere to your belief system of human caused climate change, or human induced catastrophic global warming then you are correct. However he knows and understands more real physics than you can possibly comprehend.

1. you appear to deny the accepted model, and in particular the bit about C02, but you have rejected any article in support of that model, so I have nothing you will accept as proof.
2. I would suggest that the rate of change, which is so much faster than previous warming events would be the symptom, and the cause would have to be something that is different about this time. Number 1 suspect, with fingerprints all over the causes is the western industrial society.

So you would rather listen to a computer monkey with zero knowledge of any sort of gas, thermal or other physics, than someone strongly versed in scientific process, thermal and gas physics, and a whole heap of other facets of climate related physics to do with air flow, pressure flow, mathematics etc etc etc..

That explains a LOT of things.

Explains why you are basically totally ignorant of anything to do with anything. !!!

You do NOT look at facts, you believe in assumptions from computer models and their inherent biases.
You appear not to understand that observations made by other excellent scientists that do not confirm your beliefs can be correct. It appears your version of the science world is very small, run by cliques, divorced from reality, and has neither skepticism of received knowledge nor curiosity to investigate scientific anomalies.

You have not provided one piece of verified observational data, i.e. real science. In the main all you have provided is positive opinions confirming your bias mixed with overbearing hubris and insults to anyone you consider not a scientist.

‘I previously hypothesized that changes in upper-level circulation, especially the subtropical easterlies and the mid-latitude westerlies are due to changes in pressure on the magnetic field and all underlying atmospheric layers by the solar wind. We know the solar wind compresses the magnetic field on the up-Sun side, so it is logical that variation in the solar wind causes variation in the amount of compression creating a bellows-like effect.’

I started looking into this subject with the release of AR4. As an Engineer, I was looking for the empirically discovered link causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature. So far, I have found no such evidence. If any of you have a link to an empirical scientific paper which explains the link, please send it my way. I guess I am a “luke-warmer” because I accept that CO2 does provide a little boost to temperature. However, the best proof is whether the atmospheric temperature is actually increasing (which it has) and by how much (slight). Is it “catastrophic”? I think not.

Interesting comment and it seems that, intuitively, you have come to the conclusion that atmospheric CO2 is not a worry in regards to atmospheric global warming; this when you say;

“So far, I have found no such evidence.”

Then later you say; “I accept that CO2 does provide a little boost to temperature.”

If I read it correctly you’re saying that there’s a tiny bit of global warming?

I can understand the situation because there are now decades of ill informed comment on this topic.

In summary I’m sure that all that the puny efforts of CO2 achieve is to aid Convection in the atmosphere, and this is essentially the removal of low grade, ground origin Infra Red energy, closer to it’s ultimate location: Deep Space.

If water, natural origin CO2 and human origin CO2 were not available to provide this cooling, then impact of atmospheric gas molecules with the surface would do it.

The most likely engineering outcome for higher CO2 in the atmosphere is that it would be a coolant.

And, of course, the effect of the Human Origin component of all this would be quantitatively irrelevant.

What a mess politicians make of science!

But then money and control have too often been the driving force in civilisation.

AndyG55, I am not a scientist, so I muddle through. My statement about CO2 comes from the laboratory experiments where it demonstrates the absorption of a certain amount of heat, before it gives it off again. Thereby increasing the amount of time it takes for the heat to move away from earth. To me that makes it a “little bit” of global warming. However, there are many natural phenomena which could impede this, maybe even reverse it for all we know. It seems the AGW crowd has spent all their time on the “A” part, and no time on natural processes.

” My statement about CO2 comes from the laboratory experiments where it demonstrates the absorption of a certain amount of heat…… Thereby increasing the amount of time it takes for the heat to move away from earth..”

A tiny thin sliver of absorption, which is immediately passed to the remainder of the atmosphere, and dealt with by convection

The whole set-up is controlled by the gravity based temperature pressure gradient.

If there was a slowing of cooling, it would change that gradient, and as Miskolvski showed, there has been absolutely zero change in the IR opacity due to enhanced CO2.

Radiative heat transfer is insignificant in that it does not change the thermal gradient

At the surface, the mean free distance of absorption in the CO2 frequency range is around 10m, an increase in CO2 might lower that by a small amount, but that just mean thermalisation happens a tiny fraction of a second earlier. CO2 does not re-emit below 11km, where the atmosphere is thin enough for conduction/convection to no longer rule.

If anything, atmospheric CO2 is just another conduit for atmospheric, and in fact, tests have been done in the double glazing industry that show that CO2 has less resistance to heat transfer than normal air.

Sorry , but you have been fooled by the very first error of the AGW fallacy.

The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands.

Such a radiant greenhouse effect does not exist in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.

In spite of CO2 being a ghg, multiple compelling evidence listed in Section 2 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com rules it out as a significant contributor to climate change. Explanation of why is in Section 5.

All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no change in average global temperature since about 2002-2005.
CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002 so if CO2 has any effect on temperature it can’t be very much.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dv8kE26U0AEKfdY.jpg

The use of water vapor as the ghg is not ruled out. Properly combining the log of increased WV with an approximation for ocean cycles and, as a proxy for what the sun does, the time-integral of SSN anomalies, results in a match to measured average global temperature of 98.3% 1895-2017.

Oops, an embarrassing mistake.
And a very savage rebuke.
Congratulations Jo for taking the higher ground. You’ve courteously acknowledged the mistake and printed the correction verbatim despite the tone.
I find that a pleasant change after the constant intellectual dishonesty of so many environmental websites.
I’d like to welcome Professor Tsonis here and hope that this is not the only comment he makes on the site. Well-informed commentators are a boon to open discussion and knowledge.

Thank you, Jo, for your quick and thorough response to Prof. Tsonis’ comments. Your willingness to correct your own comments displays the kind of integrity that I appreciate so much. I have been following your posts for years and have come to realise that such integrity is characteristic of all the work you do. I trust that it will bear good fruit for you, and through you, for others. Thanks, again.